SHREYA SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA

M/S Candor Textiles P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

…d that though the insertion of this explanation are w.e.f. 01.04.2021, it is clarificatory in nature and, therefore, it will be applicable retrospectively in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2014) 5 SCC 1. The explanations’ will be applicable for earlier assessment years as well. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the contribution made by employees have been deposited after the due date of statutory time limit under the PF Act as well as Employees State Insurance Act. The Ld. D.R. submitted that these statues are beneficial legislation and the due da…

Shri Ghanshyamdas Pahuja, Indore vs. ACIT 4(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

…d that though the insertion of this explanation are w.e.f. 01.04.2021, it is clarificatory in nature and, therefore, it will be applicable retrospectively in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2014) 5 SCC 1. The explanations’ will be applicable for earlier assessment years as well. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the contribution made by employees have been deposited after the due date of statutory time limit under the PF Act as well as Employees State Insurance Act. The Ld. D.R. submitted that these statues are beneficial legislation and the due da…

Shri Vijendra Kumar Tiwari, Indore vs. The CIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

…d that though the insertion of this explanation are w.e.f. 01.04.2021, it is clarificatory in nature and, therefore, it will be applicable retrospectively in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2014) 5 SCC 1. The explanations’ will be applicable for earlier assessment years as well. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the contribution made by employees have been deposited after the due date of statutory time limit under the PF Act as well as Employees State Insurance Act. The Ld. D.R. submitted that these statues are beneficial legislation and the due da…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Skyways Industrial Estate Company (P) Ltd

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

The State of Karnataka vs. Hassan Thermal Power Private Limited

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

…ts; 1) Commissioner of Income tax vs. Gogte Minerals, reported in (1996) 220 ITR 29; 2) Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., vs Essar Power Ltd, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 755; 3) Enercon (India) Ltd., & Ors., vs. Enercon GMBH & Anr., reported in (2014) 5 SCC 1; 4) Modi Entertainment Network & Anr., vs. WSG Cricket PTE Ltd., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 341; 5) Ashapura Mine-Chem Limited vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 193; 6) Printers Mysore Ltd.,& Anr., vs. Asst. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.,, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 434; 7) P.Singaravelan & Ors.…

B T Kantharaj vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Nanjundappa vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Thariq Khan vs. State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Smt Janaki vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Smt. Lakshmamma vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri Shivalingaiah vs. State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri H K Basavegowda vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Smt. Priyadarshini vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Moosaveer @ Ibrahim Sab vs. State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

N Santhosh Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri C Govardhan Reddy vs. State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri Rajanna vs. State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Smt. Motamma vs. Deputy Commissioner

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

K T Thipperudrappa vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…

Sri A M Narayanaswamy vs. The State of Karnataka

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

…before the commencement of the Act, thereby making Section 5 retrospective in operation which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.2 It is also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs UNION OF INDIA reported in (2015)5 SCC 1 has held that a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be 349 struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. Applying the said principle, petitioners are contending that Section 3 does not define or indicate the activities connected with or arising out of land grabbing and Section 3 being in precise, for shee…