Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others

4 SCC 649Reported decision1984#14527 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(10AA)Section 10(10AA)(i)Section 10(10AA)(ii)Section 154

Judgments citing Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, vs. PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Election Petition 2

ITA/2/2023HC Rajasthan07 Jan 2025

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Section 100(1)(b)Section 81

…ce produced before the Court in support of the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and also should stand the test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny vide Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others, [1984] 4 SCC 649. (5) It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents vide Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 643; M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy & Others, [1977] 1 SCR 490; Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh & Ors., [197…

RAVINDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-73, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 648/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21
Section 10Section 154

…xclusively within the domain of contractual activities or private actions in which event, a Writ Petition would not lie. 20. The authority for this proposition is the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India [2005] 4 SCC 649, wherein it is stated as follows: ** ** ** 22. Above is the ratio decidendi laid down by a seven Judge Bench of this Court which is binding on this Bench. The facts of the case in hand will have to be tested on the touch stone of the parameters laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case (supra). Before doing so it would be worthwhile once again to re…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Election Petition 2

ITA/5/2024HC Rajasthan24 Jul 2024

Bench: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,KULDEEP MATHUR

Section 100(1)(b)Section 81

…ce produced before the Court in support of the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and also should stand the test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny vide Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others, [1984] 4 SCC 649. (5) It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents vide Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 643; M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy & Others, [1977] 1 SCR 490; Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh & Ors., [197…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SHRI GULAB SINGH BHANDARI

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Election Petition 2

ITA/7/2024HC Rajasthan23 Apr 2024

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MUNNURI LAXMAN

Section 100(1)(b)Section 81

…ce produced before the Court in support of the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and also should stand the test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny vide Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others, [1984] 4 SCC 649. (5) It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents vide Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 643; M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy & Others, [1977] 1 SCR 490; Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh & Ors., [197…

PRINCIPAL COMMNR OF INCOME TAX-1, KHURDHA. vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the Election Petition 2

ITA/5/2024HC Orissa12 Apr 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Section 100(1)(b)Section 81

…ce produced before the Court in support of the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and also should stand the test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny vide Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others, [1984] 4 SCC 649. (5) It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents vide Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 643; M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy & Others, [1977] 1 SCR 490; Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh & Ors., [197…

MS JAYSHREE GURURAJ vs. CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED

WP/19726/2015HC Karnataka06 Oct 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B.S.Patil W.P.No.19726/2015 (S-Dis) Between: Ms.Jayshree Gururaj, D/O. H.S.Gururaja Rao, Aged About 45 Years, Residing At 341, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 013.

Section 23

…lways in not granting renewal of licence was found arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory. 16. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ZEE TELEFILMS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – (2005) 4 SCC 649, wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with Article 12 of Constitution and the question WP 19726/2015 11 whether Board of Control for Cricket in India was a State, applied the test laid down in PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY - (2002) 5 SCC 111. 17. In paragraph 33 of the said judgment, the Apex Court…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1160/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle 12(1) Vs. M/S.Menzies Aviation Bobba Bangalore. (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) M.P.No.19/Bang/2014 Arising Out Of Ita No.1160/Bang/2012 - Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S.Menzies Aviation Acit, Circle 12(1) Bobba (Bangalore) Pvt. Vs. Bangalore. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi For Assessee : Mr. V. Srinivasan Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2015 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-Iii, Bangalore, Dated 11.06.2012 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2

For Appellant: Mr. V. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi
Section 80I

…ORS Vs. V.S.K. RUDANI & ORS. 22 ITA.No.1160/Bang/2012 M/s. Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore), P. Ltd., Bangalore. BINNY LTD., & ANR. Vs. SADASIVAN & ORS. 2005 (6) SCC 657 Paras 10 & 11 @ Pg.664-666 ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. & ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2005) 4 SCC 649 Paras 31-33 @ Pg. 682-683. Private bodies performing functions akin to public duties. Halabury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition 2001 Volume 1(1) (Revised issue). Pg. 116 para 59 BURTON VS. WILLINGTON PARKING AUTHORITY (1951) 6 L.Ed.2D.45 AT 50. EVANS Vs. NEWTON (1966) 15 L.Ed. 2D. 373 @ 377, 379. JACKSON Vs. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. (1974) 49 L.Ed 2D…