State of Haryana & Ors. v. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors.

4 SCC 659Reported decision1990#7024 most cited

What is State of Haryana & Ors. v. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors. authority for?

The High Court is not justified in reversing a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the lower Courts in a second appeal if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Interference is confined to substantial questions of law.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

State of Haryana & Ors. v. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors. · concurrent finding of fact · second appeal · High Court interference · substantial question of law · re-appreciation of evidence · finding of fact

Judgments citing State of Haryana & Ors. v. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors.

M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-010201-010202 - 2010Supreme Court03 Jan 2023

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 3Section 4Section 46Section 51

…opted to avoid payment of 17 See Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan, (1999) 6 SCC 343; and C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) By Legal Representatives and Others v. C. Jayarama Reddy (Dead) By Legal Representatives and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 659. Civil Appeal Nos.10201-10202 of 2010 & Ors. Page 21 of 21 interest tax. This would have entailed not only looking at the documents but also several other factors, which would have meant getting information and ascertainment of facts in detail from the assessee and the hirer. However, at this distinct point of time, we do not think t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Pilot Industries Limited

ITA/411/2022HC Delhi19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

…417/2022 Page 11 of 11 hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Pilot Industries Limited

ITA/413/2022HC Delhi19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

…417/2022 Page 11 of 11 hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by t…

PCIT, Delhi-7 vs. Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA/394/2022HC Delhi13 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Satkar Infrastructure (P) Ltd

ITA/386/2022HC Delhi10 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 100Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S Attire Designers Pvt. Ltd

ITA/344/2022HC Delhi20 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 37(1)Section 68

…ts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. M/S Spg Finvest Pvt. Ltd

ITA/305/2022HC Delhi14 Sept 2022

Bench: The Assesing Officer. 3. He States That The Itat Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Share Capital & Share Premium Overlooking The Fact That The Assesse Company Had Failed To Explain The Reasons For High Share Premium /Capital Which Was Not Commensurate With This Is A Digitally Signed Judgement. Neutral Citation No: 2022/Dhc/003669

Section 68

…ts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn…

Principal Commissioner of vs. M/S Utech Developers Ltd

ITA/180/2022HC Delhi07 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 36(1)(iii)

…of the view that the appellant, by way of the present appeal, seeks interference with finding of facts arrived at by the CIT(A) and ITAT by asking this Court to re-appreciate the evidence. 7. In State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court would not be justified in law in reversing in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below. This Court is further of the opinion that the impugned order calls for no interference as it suffers from no perversity. No substantial questions of law arise in this matter. Accor…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Hamdard National Foundation (India)

ITA/144/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…ITA 142/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 14.01.2022 Date of Decision: 16.02.2022 + ITA 142/2021 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. + ITA 144/2021 & CM APPL. 32406/2021 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Hamdrd National Foundation (India)

ITA/115/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…ITA 142/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 14.01.2022 Date of Decision: 16.02.2022 + ITA 142/2021 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. + ITA 144/2021 & CM APPL. 32406/2021 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15 vs. Shailja Pasricha

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/227/2020HC Delhi23 Nov 2021
Section 50C

…elow is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one d…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Servants of People Society

Accordingly, the present appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed

ITA/161/2021HC Delhi16 Nov 2021
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 2(15)

…f the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the 2021:DHC:3690-DB ITA No.161/2021 Page 5 of 5 Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one d…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Association of State Road Transport Undertakings

Appeal is dismissed

ITA-154/2021HC Delhi30 Sept 2021
Section 10Section 100Section 12ASection 2(15)

…elow is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Dabur Research Foundation

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/150/2021HC Delhi27 Sept 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

…erified ITA 150/2021 Page 5 of 5 substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/480/2017HC Telangana01 Aug 2017
For Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy
Section 120BSection 25Section 27Section 302

…Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:2282-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 480 of 2017 a/w Cr. Appeal No. 192, 337, 382, 623 of 2017 and Cr. Revision No. 114 of 2018 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of Decision: 10.01.2025 Cr. Appeal No. 480 of 2017 1. Arun Kumar @ Manee ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Cr. Appeal No. 192 of 2017 2. Pradeep Gupta ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Cr. Appeal No. 337 of 2017 3. Anil Kumar @ Sethu ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Cr. A…

Official Liquidator of M/S Kirloskar Investments vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

CA/1433/2014HC Karnataka18 Mar 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

Section 96

…cunae and put forth a new version. Therefore, such act of the defendants cannot be acceded to. 1 (2019) 6 SCC 82 2 (2016) 13 SCC 124 3 AIR 2010 SC 690 4 (2008) 5 SCC 444 5 AIR 2008 SC 2139 6 (1994) 4 SCC 659 7 AIR 1963 SC 1526 RFA No.1433/2014 C/W RFA NO.1525/2014, RFA CROB NO.1/2015 33 28. On a careful consideration of the contentions raised in respect of application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, we are of the view that the documents sought to be produced are either the public documents or the private documents registered with publ…

State of Haryana & Ors. v. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors. (4 SCC 659) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax