Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State

7 SCC 721Reported decision2001#25511 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2023.

Judgments citing Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State

Comnr.of Income Tax vs. M/S.Times Traconp

ITA/87/2013HC Orissa09 Mar 2023

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Acquitted Of The Commission Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (Ni Act). 1 Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment? Yes.

For Appellant: Mr Pankaj Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate
Section 138Section 313

…tled to file the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. (Refer: Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim Khan, (2011) 4 SCC 275, Na­ tional Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State, (2009) 1 SCC 407 and Punjab & Sindh Bank v. VinkarSahkari Bank Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 721) 21. As observed above, the cheque in question, Ext.C-1, has been issued by a partner of Indian Education Centre and not by the respondent in his name and the appellant has failed to mention in the complaint or prove in evi­ dence that Indian Education Centre had any connection with him or his establishment or, for that matter, even with the r…

The Commissioner of Income tAx II vs. M/s. Softpro Systems (P) Limited

ITTA/262/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) For The Commission Of An Offence Punishable

For Appellant: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate, withFor Respondent: M/s Rupinder Singh Thakur and
Section 138Section 313

…ile the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. (Refer: Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim Khan, (2011) 4 SCC 275, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State, (2009) 1 SCC 407 and Punjab & Sindh Bank v. Vinkar Sahkari Bank Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 721) 21. As observed above, the cheque in question Ext.C-1 has been issued by a partner of Indian Education Centre and not by the respondent in his name and the appellant has failed to mention in the complaint or prove in evidence that Indian Education Centre had any connection with him or his establishment or for that matter, even with the respondent…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad vs. K.Sudha Rani

ITTA/87/2013HC Telangana25 Jun 2013

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Acquitted Of The Commission Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (Ni Act). 1 Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment? Yes.

For Appellant: Mr Pankaj Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate
Section 138Section 313

…tled to file the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. (Refer: Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim Khan, (2011) 4 SCC 275, Na­ tional Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State, (2009) 1 SCC 407 and Punjab & Sindh Bank v. VinkarSahkari Bank Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 721) 21. As observed above, the cheque in question, Ext.C-1, has been issued by a partner of Indian Education Centre and not by the respondent in his name and the appellant has failed to mention in the complaint or prove in evi­ dence that Indian Education Centre had any connection with him or his establishment or, for that matter, even with the r…

Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State (7 SCC 721) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax