Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2 SCC 86Reported decision1973#17131 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Prl.Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Pegasystems World Wide India Pvt Ltd

ITTA/524/2016HC Telangana14 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. M/S Hyundai Rotem Company

ITA/524/2016HC Delhi07 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 138

…ed the same in his income tax records. DW- 2, in his report, opined that the cheque in question does not bear the signature of the accused. The Court after taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 86; and Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583, proceeded to examine the disputed signatures of the accused on the cheque with the admitted signatures of the accused and observed that there was a fundamental dissimilarity in the manner of making strokes by the accused. The Court observed that there is a difference in the manner the lette…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Tarun Bal Shikha Samiti

ITA/517/2016HC Delhi03 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 138

…ed the same in his income tax records. DW- 2, in his report, opined that the cheque in question does not bear the signature of the accused. The Court after taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 86; and Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583, proceeded to examine the disputed signatures of the accused on the cheque with the admitted signatures of the accused and observed that there was a fundamental dissimilarity in the manner of making strokes by the accused. The Court observed that there is a difference in the manner the lette…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Detergents India Ltd

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

…ic realities behind the legal façade can be looked at so that tax is not evaded or avoided. 26 Page 27 JUDGMENT 18. Some other decisions may be taken note of at this stage. In Flash Laboratories Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, (2003) 2 SCC 86, the appellant was a subsidiary company of M/s Parle Products Limited. M/s Parle Biscuits Limited is also a subsidiary company of M/s Parle Products Limited. What was in question in that case was the relationship between two subsidiary companies. It is clear that the relationship between a subsidiary company and another subsid…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Detergents India Ltd

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

…ic realities behind the legal façade can be looked at so that tax is not evaded or avoided. 26 Page 27 JUDGMENT 18. Some other decisions may be taken note of at this stage. In Flash Laboratories Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, (2003) 2 SCC 86, the appellant was a subsidiary company of M/s Parle Products Limited. M/s Parle Biscuits Limited is also a subsidiary company of M/s Parle Products Limited. What was in question in that case was the relationship between two subsidiary companies. It is clear that the relationship between a subsidiary company and another subsid…