STATE OF GUJARAT v. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

6 SCC 21Reported decision2018#2180 most cited
53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

STATE OF GUJARAT v. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION · 6 SCC 21 · Section 254(1) · Section 68 · Section 69C · cash credits · unexplained expenditure · onus of proof · appellate review · perverse findings · substantial question of law · Tribunal final fact finding authority

Sections most often in play

Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

Judgments citing STATE OF GUJARAT v. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

Mr.Vivek Nair vs. State of Karnataka

WP/13081/2021HC Karnataka08 Nov 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

…lle Williams' "Learning the Law" as to the popular tests 59 employed for finding out the ratio & precedential value of the DB judgment; he presses into service the Apex Court decision in STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (2018) 6 SCC 21 to substantiate his contention that the consideration of the question of citizenship was not necessary for the adjudication of case at the hands of DB and therefore, some observations in it's judgment cannot be taken to conclusively hold that the OCI Cardholders are citizens of India; he cannot be much faltered in asserting that some discussio…

Nikhita Bhaskar Gowda vs. Union of India

WP/12071/2021HC Karnataka08 Nov 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

…lle Williams' "Learning the Law" as to the popular tests 59 employed for finding out the ratio & precedential value of the DB judgment; he presses into service the Apex Court decision in STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (2018) 6 SCC 21 to substantiate his contention that the consideration of the question of citizenship was not necessary for the adjudication of case at the hands of DB and therefore, some observations in it's judgment cannot be taken to conclusively hold that the OCI Cardholders are citizens of India; he cannot be much faltered in asserting that some discussio…

Arushi Mishra vs. Union of India

WP/12849/2021HC Karnataka08 Nov 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

…lle Williams' "Learning the Law" as to the popular tests 59 employed for finding out the ratio & precedential value of the DB judgment; he presses into service the Apex Court decision in STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (2018) 6 SCC 21 to substantiate his contention that the consideration of the question of citizenship was not necessary for the adjudication of case at the hands of DB and therefore, some observations in it's judgment cannot be taken to conclusively hold that the OCI Cardholders are citizens of India; he cannot be much faltered in asserting that some discussio…

Alekhya Ponnekanti vs. Union of India

WP/11504/2021HC Karnataka08 Nov 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

…lle Williams' "Learning the Law" as to the popular tests 59 employed for finding out the ratio & precedential value of the DB judgment; he presses into service the Apex Court decision in STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (2018) 6 SCC 21 to substantiate his contention that the consideration of the question of citizenship was not necessary for the adjudication of case at the hands of DB and therefore, some observations in it's judgment cannot be taken to conclusively hold that the OCI Cardholders are citizens of India; he cannot be much faltered in asserting that some discussio…

Yashaswini Dharmalapa Vishwanath vs. Union of India

WP/12419/2021HC Karnataka08 Nov 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

…lle Williams' "Learning the Law" as to the popular tests 59 employed for finding out the ratio & precedential value of the DB judgment; he presses into service the Apex Court decision in STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (2018) 6 SCC 21 to substantiate his contention that the consideration of the question of citizenship was not necessary for the adjudication of case at the hands of DB and therefore, some observations in it's judgment cannot be taken to conclusively hold that the OCI Cardholders are citizens of India; he cannot be much faltered in asserting that some discussio…

Ms.Shriya Anil vs. State of Karnataka

WP/17127/2021HC Karnataka08 Nov 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

…lle Williams' "Learning the Law" as to the popular tests 59 employed for finding out the ratio & precedential value of the DB judgment; he presses into service the Apex Court decision in STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (2018) 6 SCC 21 to substantiate his contention that the consideration of the question of citizenship was not necessary for the adjudication of case at the hands of DB and therefore, some observations in it's judgment cannot be taken to conclusively hold that the OCI Cardholders are citizens of India; he cannot be much faltered in asserting that some discussio…

Anagha Muralidharan vs. The Union of India

WP/12722/2021HC Karnataka08 Nov 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

…lle Williams' "Learning the Law" as to the popular tests 59 employed for finding out the ratio & precedential value of the DB judgment; he presses into service the Apex Court decision in STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (2018) 6 SCC 21 to substantiate his contention that the consideration of the question of citizenship was not necessary for the adjudication of case at the hands of DB and therefore, some observations in it's judgment cannot be taken to conclusively hold that the OCI Cardholders are citizens of India; he cannot be much faltered in asserting that some discussio…

The State of Karnataka vs. Hassan Thermal Power Private Limited

WA/190/2020HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 4

…Kamdar, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 460; 60 6. State of Maharashtra vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 518, 7. State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association and Ors., reported in (2018) 6 SCC 21; and 8. Unitech Limited and Ors., vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 99. 67. In the case of State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association and Ors., (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 90 and 91 has held as under: “91. We may also lo…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) vs. Late Shri Sudhir Sareen

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

…rt of this proposition, Ms Nundy relied upon the inversion test evolved by Professor Eugen Wambaugh (Harvard Law School); a test which was applied by the Supreme Court in a decision rendered in State of Gujarat v. Utility Users' Welfare Association, (2018) 6 SCC 2112; at paragraph 113. This test was also cited with approval by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 20 SCC 11913; at paragraph 13. 29. Applying the inversion test, it was submitted that Independent Thought case is an authority for the following propositions. (i) A woman cannot…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Visakhapatnam vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Paderu

ITTA/125/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003265-003266 - 2003Supreme Court06 Dec 2010
Section 148Section 260

…arranted. 23. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal requiring consideration of the High Court. 9 1995 Supp (2) SCC 453 10 (2007) 6 SCC 21 1 There is no merit in the appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly with costs, quantified at `20,000/-. …………………………………… (D.K. JAIN, J.) ...…………………………………. (T.S. THAKUR, J.) NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 6, 2010. RS 1…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bala Kaul

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 329 / 2009HC Delhi28 May 2009
Section 36(2)

…s- CIT, [2001] 247 ITR 178(SC): 2001(1) SCC 135 lays down that the Tribunal is the final fact finding Authority and its decision is alterable only if it is perverse [See CIT vs- Mukundray K. Shah, [2007] 290 ITR 433(SC)], CIT vs- P. Mohankala, (2007) 6 SCC 21 and T. Ashok Pai vs- CIT, Bangalore, (2007) 7 SCC 162 which precedents prescribe that only palpably perverse conclusions pertaining to the factual matrix should be interfered with by the High Court. The concurrent findings of the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT are not, in our opinion, perverse. Hence, we find no reason to delve further in…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. D.S.Promoters & Developers P. Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs

ITA/654/2008HC Delhi01 May 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 22Section 260ASection 28

…ecently, this view finds reiteration in CIT –vs- Mukundray K. Shah, [2007] 290 ITR 433(SC) where their Lordships have observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with a finding of fact which was not perverse. In CIT –vs- P. Mohanakala, (2007) 6 SCC 21 the Supreme Court has held that the concurrent findings of fact, predicated on material available on the record, cannot constitute questions of law much less substantial questions of law. A similar appreciation of law is to be found in Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax –vs- M.N. Moni, ITA No.654/2008 Page 4 of 9 (2007) 10 SCC 584 deci…