State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma

6 SCC 237Supreme Court of India1999#21127 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

…35/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 it, as remand unnecessarily generate fresh litigation by untying settled rights and liabilities. The reference in this regard can be made to the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘M.C. Mehta Vs UOI & Anrs’ [1999, 6 SCC 237 (SC)], ‘State of UP Vs Sudhir Kumar Singh & Anrs’ [2021,19 SCC 706 (SC)], and ‘Srishnadatta Awasthy Vs State of MP’ [2024, SCC Online Sc 493 (SC)] which were also relied in ‘Suvej Singh Vs Ram Naresh & Anrs’ [reported in 2025 INSC 1405 (SC)] 30. While dealing with condonation of delay, we are mindful that the length of delay does not matter but th…

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

…35/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 it, as remand unnecessarily generate fresh litigation by untying settled rights and liabilities. The reference in this regard can be made to the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘M.C. Mehta Vs UOI & Anrs’ [1999, 6 SCC 237 (SC)], ‘State of UP Vs Sudhir Kumar Singh & Anrs’ [2021,19 SCC 706 (SC)], and ‘Srishnadatta Awasthy Vs State of MP’ [2024, SCC Online Sc 493 (SC)] which were also relied in ‘Suvej Singh Vs Ram Naresh & Anrs’ [reported in 2025 INSC 1405 (SC)] 30. While dealing with condonation of delay, we are mindful that the length of delay does not matter but th…

State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (6 SCC 237) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax