What is State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra authority for?

A judicial decision is authority only for what it actually decides, which is its ratio decidendi, and not for every observation or what logically follows from general expressions. A decision must be read as applicable to the facts proved, with general expressions qualified by the specific context in which they are found.

How many judgments cite State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra (2 SCR 154), spanning 2021 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 13(4), Section 250, Section 253, Section 6(3), Section 90.

State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra (2 SCR 154)

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG

Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…ing business investment. 8. At this juncture, reliance is placed on the decision of the 11 - Judge Bench in the case of Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85 "229. In State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra [AIR 1968 SC 647: (1968) 2 SCR 154 : (1968) 2 SCJ 263 J dealing with the question as to the importance to be attached to the observations found in the judgments of this Court, this is what this Court observed: "A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically fol…

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar&For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AAGCM0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date of hearing: 21/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: /04/2022 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 4,…

M/S.KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

…ay logically flow from the observations made therein, reiterated once again by the Apex Court in Maviyali Service Cooperative Bank v. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). Reference therein is also made to the decision in State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra [1968] 2 SCR 15 for the proposition that a decision must be read as applicable to the facts proved or assumed to be proved, and the generality of the expressions are not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which the expressions are to be found. A decision, thus, cannot be viewed divorced from…

THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2),, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

…ay logically flow from the observations made therein, reiterated once again by the Apex Court in Maviyali Service Cooperative Bank v. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). Reference therein is also made to the decision in State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra [1968] 2 SCR 15 for the proposition that a decision must be read as applicable to the facts proved or assumed to be proved, and the generality of the expressions are not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which the expressions are to be found. A decision, thus, cannot be viewed divorced from…

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2132/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

…l code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." 2.4. This decision of House of Lords was quoted with approval by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, (1968) 2 SCR 154(SC) wherein It stated that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. Thus we must appreciate that Hon'ble SC in Smiff Securities only decided that goodwill is depreciable. Whether other sections of the Act restrict depreciation in case of goodwill acquired during amalgamation, was not an issue before Hon'ble SC and therefore the…

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT

Section 32Section 35D

…l code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." 2.4. This decision of House of Lords was quoted with approval by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, (1968) 2 SCR 154(SC) wherein It stated that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. Thus we must appreciate that Hon'ble SC in Smiff Securities only decided that goodwill is depreciable. Whether other sections of the Act restrict depreciation in case of goodwill acquired during amalgamation, was not an issue before Hon'ble SC and therefore the…