Singh and Anr. v. Sucha Singh and Anr.

4 SCC 326Reported decision2002#15794 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2024.

Judgments citing Singh and Anr. v. Sucha Singh and Anr.

Vaidya Srikantappa Sadashivaiah Srikanth, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore- 1, Bangalore

ITA 200/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(5)Section 54

…, all the contentions of the appellant, being without any substance, fail and the appeal is dismissed." 26. In fact, even in the case of Anasuya Bai, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has placed reliance on its decisions in Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 326] (Munithimmaiah), Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority [(2011) 3 SCC 139] (Offshore Holdings), (arising under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('BDA Act' for short)) and Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 3 SCC 1] (Girnar Traders (3)), to hold that the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 and the BDA…

M/S. Hanumanthappa Chandrashekar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1223/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 46Section 96

…, all the contentions of the appellant, being without any substance, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 26. In fact, even in the case of Anasuya Bai, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has placed reliance on its decisions in Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 326] (Munithimmaiah), Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority [(2011) 3 SCC 139] (Offshore Holdings), (arising under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('BDA Act' for short)) and Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 3 SCC 1] (Girnar Traders (3)), to hold that the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 and the BDA…

Smt. S. Jalaja vs. Union of India

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

WA/1105/2019HC Karnataka24 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 4

…velopment Act, 1966 is a special enactment vis a vis Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? 179 43. The Supreme Court in 'MUNITHIMMAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (2002) 4 SCC 326 while dealing with provisions of Bangalore Development Authority, 1976 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held that Bangalore Development Authority Act is an Act to provide for the establishment of a development authority to facilitate and ensure land growth and development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and the acquisition…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. Galgotia Books & Department Store Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are allowed

ITA/1076/2018HC Delhi28 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 25Section 4Section 42Section 5Section 8Section 9

…o the right of the creditor to seek the remedy of fore-closure or sale under Section 67 or to exercise the power under Section 69 to sell the mortgaged property or appoint a receiver under Section 69A [Shivdev Singh and Anr. Vs. Sucha Singh and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 326]. To put it simply, a mortgage is transfer of an interest in an immovable property for the purpose of securing repayment of a loan, the mortgagee's interest lasting "only as long as the mortgage has not been paid off" [All Indian Film Corporation Ltd. vs. Raja Gyan Nath, 2(1969) 3 SCC 79]. 158. A hypothecatee or a mortgagee, thus, has a lim…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Saldi Chits Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are allowed

ITA/143/2018HC Delhi09 Feb 2018

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

Section 25Section 4Section 42Section 5Section 8Section 9

M/S.Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise &Customs

C.A. No.-006832-006832 - 1999Supreme Court09 Mar 2005

For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs

Section 11B

…in certain cases of excess payment. The section was further amended by the Amendment Act of 1991 (Act 14 of 1991) with effect from September 19, 1991. In Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd., [1992] 4 SCC 389 and in Union of India v. I.T.C. Ltd., [1993] Supp 4 SCC 326, this Court held that so long as the refund proceedings are pending and not finalized, the amended provisions get attracted and may disentitle the manufacturer from claiming any refund contrary to the amended provisions. To put it differently, the provisions of Section 11B as amended by the Amendment Act of 1991 would also apply to claims of refund…