Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal

4 SCC 266Reported decision2011#6093 most cited

What is Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal authority for?

Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, external aids like precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal · plain statutory language · legislative command · external aids · precedents · interpret statute

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 14ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80-IESection 80JJAA

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(xviii)section 14a disallowancereal income theorysection 80jjasection 80jjaamat creditweighted deductionprohibited by lawtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitionsection 48section 45

Judgments citing Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that where the statute is clear, there is no scope for reading into it any intention other than what is expressed. Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 15– 20. We therefore hold that the learned…

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 914/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…preme Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile\nProcessors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that where the statute is clear,\nthere is no scope for reading into it any intention other than what is expressed.\nSimilarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was\nheld that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as\nprecedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command.\n20. We therefore hold that the learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the\nexcise duty refund constitutes a capital receipt or that it can be excluded from\nbook profit on the basis of general a…

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that where the statute is clear, there is no scope for reading into it any intention other than what is expressed. Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 15– 20. We therefore hold that the learned…

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that where the statute is clear, there is no scope for reading into it any intention other than what is expressed. Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 15– 20. We therefore hold that the learned…

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 850/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that where the statute is clear, there is no scope for reading into it any intention other than what is expressed. Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 15– 20. We therefore hold that the learned…

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that where the statute is clear, there is no scope for reading into it any intention other than what is expressed. Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 15– 20. We therefore hold that the learned…

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 848/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…preme Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile\nProcessors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that where the statute is clear,\nthere is no scope for reading into it any intention other than what is expressed.\nSimilarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was\nheld that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as\nprecedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command.\n20. We therefore hold that the learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the\nexcise duty refund constitutes a capital receipt or that it can be excluded from\nbook profit on the basis of general a…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that where the statute is clear, there is no scope for reading into it any intention other than what is expressed. Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 15– 20. We therefore hold that the learned…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP FRANCE SAS, GURGAON

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 724/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144C(5)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIALMEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Technip France SAS, Circle-3(1)(2), C/o-BMR & Associates LLP, International Taxation, 22nd Floor, Building No. 5, New Delhi Tower –A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon PAN :AADCT4064B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Tavish Verma, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR & Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.04.2022 Date of pronouncement 26.07.2022 ORDER PERSAKTIJIT DE…

M/S ENI SPA,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result both these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 395/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Eni Spa, Vs. Dcit (International C/O- Bmr & Associates, 22Nd Taxation), Floor, Building No.5, Tower- Circle-Gurgaon, New Delhi A, Cyber City, Dlf Phase-Iii, Gurgaon Pan :Aacce3464B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Respondent By Shri G.K. Dhall, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(2)Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 44BSection 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Eni SpA, Vs. DCIT (International C/o- BMR & Associates, 22nd Taxation), Floor, Building No.5, Tower- Circle-Gurgaon, New Delhi A, Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon PAN :AACCE3464B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Respondent by Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28.02.2019 Date of pronouncement 07.03.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order…

M/S. ENI SPA,ITALY vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1669/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Eni Spa. Vs. The D.C.I.T Plazzale Enrico Mattei International Taxation Rome, Italy Circle New Delhi Pan No. : Aacce 3464 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv Shri S.S. Tomar, Adv Respondent By : Shri G.K. Dhall, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…rposes of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. The language in section 44BB in our view is clear so also the Legislative intention. It is a trite law that has already held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Parmannand v.Mohan Koikal [2011] 4 SCC 266 that "the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the Legislative intend. It is well settled principle of law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory vision which is plan and unambiguous". If the legislatures intention as contended by the Revenue was to restrict the benefit of sec. 44BB only to the main contractor…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP UK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection is allowed

ITA 1116/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT-DR
Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…rposes of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. The language in section 44BB in our view is clear so also the Legislative intention. It is a trite law that has already held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Parmannand v.Mohan Koikal [2011] 4 SCC 266 that "the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the Legislative intend. It is well settled principle of law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory vision which is plan and unambiguous". If the legislatures intention as contended by the Revenue was to restrict the benefit of sec. 44BB only to the main contractor…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MODERN PREFAB SYSTEMS PVT. LTD

ITA/64/2018HC Delhi22 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 24

…incere efforts and sufficient efforts are unable to support and maintain themselves and arc required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.” …. 13. The Supreme Court in the case reported as (2000) 4 SCC 266 Padmja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma has dealt with the issue of maintenance and obligation of the mother having the earning capacity to maintain the children. The relevant discussion appears in para No.10 which is extracted hereunder:- “10. Maintenance has not been defined in the act or between the parents whose duty it is to maintain the chi…

TECHNIP UK LTD.,GURGAON vs. DIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR
Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…rposes of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. The language in section 44BB in our view is clear so also the Legislative intention. It is a trite law that has already held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Parmannand v.Mohan Koikal [2011] 4 SCC 266 that "the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the Legislative intend. It is well settled principle of law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory vision which is plan and unambiguous". If the legislatures intention as contended by the Revenue was to restrict the benefit of sec. 44BB only to the main contractor…

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. CGG MARINE RESOURCES NORGE, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 13 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed with above direction

ITA 1493/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv
Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…of prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils. The language in section 44BB in our view is clear so also the legislative intention. It is a trite law that has already held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Parmannand v. Mohan Koikal [2011] 4 SCC 266 that "the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intend. It is well settled principle of law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plan and unambiguous". If the legislatures intention as contended by the Revenue was to restrict the benefit of sec. 44BB only to the main contrac…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…the Court should give effect to it (Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand, 2004 (11) SCC 625; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association, 2004(6) SCC 210). 33. In B. Premanand and Ors.v. Mohan Koikal and Ors., (2011)4 SCC 266 this Court has observed as follows: “32. The literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be no interpretation. In other words, we Page 21 JUDGMENT 21 should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language. 33. We may mention here that the literal rule of inter- pretation is not only followed by…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

C.A. No.-003958-003958 - 2014Supreme Court12 Mar 2014
Section 132Section 158B

…the Court should give effect to it (Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand, 2004 (11) SCC 625; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association, 2004(6) SCC 210). 33. In B. Premanand and Ors.v. Mohan Koikal and Ors., (2011)4 SCC 266 this Court has observed as follows: “32. The literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be no interpretation. In other words, we Page 21 JUDGMENT 21 should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language. 33. We may mention here that the literal rule of inter- pretation is not only followed by…

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Crl.A. No.-000061-000061 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jan 2014

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 245(2)Section 276Section 279(1)

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.61 OF 2007 Sasi Enterprises … Appellant Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.62, 63 & 64 OF 2007 J U D G M E N T K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are concerned with four Criminal Appeals No.61 to 64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals No.61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M/s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93…

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Crl.A. No.-000061-000061 - 2007Supreme Court30 Jan 2014

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 245(2)Section 276Section 279(1)

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.61 OF 2007 Sasi Enterprises … Appellant Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.62, 63 & 64 OF 2007 J U D G M E N T K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are concerned with four Criminal Appeals No.61 to 64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals No.61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M/s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93…

Similarly, in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (4 SCC 266) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax