SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 58

4 SCC 366Reported decision1990#7605 most cited
15

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

Judgments citing SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 58

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 44C

…tion is to be principally assessed based on the language of the enactment, then under what circumstances should the objects and purposes behind a legislation be taken into account? This Court in Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 366, established a distinction between the purpose or object of an enactment and the legislative intent. It held that while the former is to provide a remedy for the malady, the latter relates to the meaning or exposition of the remedy as enacted. Thus, the object and purpose are elements that are taken into account more concretely when the court…

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: \nMs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ent matrix in which the new Scheme [National Faceless Assessment Scheme] is incorporated will be a relevant consideration, and in this regard, this Court must refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India[1990] 4 SCC 366/[1990] 52 Тахтап 352/185 ITR 104, wherein its held as follows:\n\"17. For determining the purpose or object of the legislation, it is permissible to look into the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which necessitated the passing of that law. For the limited purpose of appreciating the background and the antecedent…

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

…127. (1973) 1 SCC 500 128. (1897) 165 US 150 129. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 190 130. (1978) 2 SCC 1 131. AIR 2004 SC 361 132. 1964 [71] SCR 456 133. AIR 1951 SC 41 134. (2013) 1 SCC 745 135. (1988) 2 SCC 602 136. (1976) 2 SCC 310 137. (1990) 4 SCC 366 138. AIR 1956 SC 246 139. AIR 1963 SC 1241 140. AIR 1957 SC 397 141. (1996) 1 SCC 1 142. (2012) 3 SCC 1 143. (2012) 10 SCC 1 144. (1987) 2 SCC 295 145. (2013) 12 SCC 631 146. (1998) 1 SCC 226 147. (1974) 1 SCC 549 Coram : Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Thi…

GEETHA PANDIT RAO AND ANR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/226494/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…rcumstances and social conditions which prevailed at the time when law was enacted and which necessitated such enactment. It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1990)4 SCC 366 observed that "while testing the legislation/rule, this is important for the purpose of appreciating the background and the antecedent factual matrix that lead to the legislative process resulting into the enactment; even to sustain presumption of constitutionality, the consideration may be had to the matters of common knowledge, history of t…

SMT GEETHA PANDIT RAO vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/7717/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…rcumstances and social conditions which prevailed at the time when law was enacted and which necessitated such enactment. It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1990)4 SCC 366 observed that "while testing the legislation/rule, this is important for the purpose of appreciating the background and the antecedent factual matrix that lead to the legislative process resulting into the enactment; even to sustain presumption of constitutionality, the consideration may be had to the matters of common knowledge, history of t…

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

ITA 556/COCH/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10Section 10(10)(iii)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…us of the University is neither that of a State/Central government nor its employees are the employees of Central government. 3.2 The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Laxman Kale & Anr Vs Union Of India 185 ITR 104 wherein the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 10(10C) which gives distinct treatment to public sector and private sector employees on the plea of violation of article 14 and held that the provision to be neither discretionary nor arbitrary. The Assessing 5 I.T.A. Nos.555&556/Coch/2018 & C.O. Nos. 01&09/Coch/2019 Officer reli…

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

ITA 555/COCH/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10Section 10(10)(iii)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…us of the University is neither that of a State/Central government nor its employees are the employees of Central government. 3.2 The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Laxman Kale & Anr Vs Union Of India 185 ITR 104 wherein the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 10(10C) which gives distinct treatment to public sector and private sector employees on the plea of violation of article 14 and held that the provision to be neither discretionary nor arbitrary. The Assessing 5 I.T.A. Nos.555&556/Coch/2018 & C.O. Nos. 01&09/Coch/2019 Officer reli…

SRI SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WA/3356/2016HC Karnataka22 Mar 2017

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

…taxation under the Expenditure-tax Act and not a Non-Hindu Undivided Family, the Parliament has not attempted an "obvious inequality"”. (ii) In the case of SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (1990)4 SCC 366, Apex Court has held that Court must look beyond ostensible classification and to the purpose of the law and apply the test of ‘palpable arbitrariness’ in the context of the felt needs of the times and societal exigencies informed by experience to determine reasonableness of the classification. Apex Court while upholding the constitu…

JCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. SYSTEM CONTROLS & TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is allowed and the appeal filed by assessee is

ITA 5335/DEL/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal
Section 145(2)Section 234BSection 40A(3)

…ews are possible, that view is preferred which furthers the purpose with which a provision is enacted ) approved in many judicial decisions, including in Goodyear India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. State of Haryana 188 ITR 402 (SC); Shashikant Laxman Kale Vs. UOI 185 ITR 104 (SC); CIT Vs. Page 23 of 28 R.K.B.K. Ltd. 331 ITR 269 (Calcutta); Great Eastern Exports Vs. CIT 332 ITR 14 (Del.) and American Hotel and Lodging Associating Educational Institution Vs. CBDT 289 ITR 46 (Del.). (C.10) In view of the foregoing paragraphs (C), (C.l), (C.2), (C.3), (C.4), (C.5), (C.5.1), (C.6); (C.7), (C.8) and (C.9) we set aside…

ITO 21(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHA K RINGSHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5459/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Ito – 21(1)(1) – Mumbai Vs. Ms. Asha K Ringshia Pandurang Sadan, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aacpr3758C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…t, in any manner, frustrate the object and intent of the legislation by providing the time limit of approval. In support of this contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Shashikant Laxman Kale & Anr. vis Union of India, [1990J 185 ITR 104 (SC), and various other decisions. He further submitted that once the amendment has been brought with a view to cure the hardship being faced in re-development of slums under the approved scheme of the State or Central Govt., the same should be treated as retrospective. In support of this pleading of retrospective effect is such situation, he rel…

ITO 21(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHA K RINGSHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5458/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Ito – 21(1)(1) – Mumbai Vs. Ms. Asha K Ringshia Pandurang Sadan, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aacpr3758C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…t, in any manner, frustrate the object and intent of the legislation by providing the time limit of approval. In support of this contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Shashikant Laxman Kale & Anr. vis Union of India, [1990J 185 ITR 104 (SC), and various other decisions. He further submitted that once the amendment has been brought with a view to cure the hardship being faced in re-development of slums under the approved scheme of the State or Central Govt., the same should be treated as retrospective. In support of this pleading of retrospective effect is such situation, he rel…

ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHA K. RINGSHIA, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4082/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year- 2009-10 The Acit 21(1), Room No. Asha K. Ringshia, 601, 6Th Floor, C-10 3Rd Floor, Pandurang Sadan, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Hanuman Road, Mumbai- 57 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai- 51 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacpr3758C

Section 80Section 80I

…ot, in any manner, frustrate the object and intent of the legislation by providing the time limit of approval. In support of this contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shashikant Laxman Kale & Anr. v/s Union of India, [1990] 185 ITR 104 (SC), and various other decisions. He further submitted that once the amendment has been brought with a view to cure the hardship being faced in re- development of slums under the approved scheme of the State or 9 Asha K. Ringshia Central Govt., the same should be treated as retrospective. In support of this pleading of retrospective effect is su…

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

WP/27825/2014HC Karnataka30 Sept 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

…RMACEUTICALS LTD AND OTHERS vs STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (5) (1976)1 SCC 916 INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG AND OTHERS vs R.TAKIN ROY RYMBAI AND OTHERS (6) (1969)1 SCC 681 N.VENUGOPALA RAVI VARMA RAJAH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (7) (1990)4 SCC 366 SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (8) (1989) SUPP (1) SCC 696 P.M.ASWATHANARAYANA SETTY AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (9) (1989)3 SCC 634 FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ETC. vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 19 (10) (1978)2 SCC 1 PATHUMMA…

M. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/14620/2014HC Karnataka30 Sept 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

…RMACEUTICALS LTD AND OTHERS vs STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (5) (1976)1 SCC 916 INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG AND OTHERS vs R.TAKIN ROY RYMBAI AND OTHERS (6) (1969)1 SCC 681 N.VENUGOPALA RAVI VARMA RAJAH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (7) (1990)4 SCC 366 SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (8) (1989) SUPP (1) SCC 696 P.M.ASWATHANARAYANA SETTY AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (9) (1989)3 SCC 634 FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ETC. vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 19 (10) (1978)2 SCC 1 PATHUMMA…

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/13078/2014HC Karnataka30 Sept 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

…RMACEUTICALS LTD AND OTHERS vs STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (5) (1976)1 SCC 916 INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG AND OTHERS vs R.TAKIN ROY RYMBAI AND OTHERS (6) (1969)1 SCC 681 N.VENUGOPALA RAVI VARMA RAJAH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (7) (1990)4 SCC 366 SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (8) (1989) SUPP (1) SCC 696 P.M.ASWATHANARAYANA SETTY AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (9) (1989)3 SCC 634 FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ETC. vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 19 (10) (1978)2 SCC 1 PATHUMMA…

SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 58 (4 SCC 366) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax