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 154Supreme Court of India1968#2467 most cited

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra · ratio decidendi · judicial precedent · interpretation of judgments · authority of decision · facts of the case · context of decision · Section 13(4) · Section 250 · Section 253

Sections most often in play

Section 13(4)Section 250 Section 253 Section 6(3)Section 90

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49 resulting company fresh tangible material section 55 going concern valuation of shares indexed cost of acquisition date of transfer full value of consideration transfer of capital asset

Judgments citing State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra

Shri Rajendra P. Jain, Mumbai vs. Dycit, Central Cir.-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 190/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Laliet Kumar (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 190 To 192/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2012-13,2013-14 & 2014-15) Rajendra P.Jain Dcit,Cc-1(3) Vs. A-1605, Samarpan 905, 9Th Floor Exotica, Off.Dattapada Old Cgo Building Road, Behind Metro Mall, Prathishta Bhawan Borivali(E) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Abhpj0579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ets Citizen Cooperative apart, according to Mavilayi. 166. In this context, Mavilayi holds that only the ratio decidendi of a judgment binds as a precedent. To elaborate on this proposition, Mavilayi refers to State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra [(1968) 2 SCR 154], which holds that 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 5 Rajendra P.Jain found therein, nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. Then, it quotes Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab[1919) 3 SCR 1059]. Though it was from the…

Shri Gufran Ahmed Chaudhari, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 623/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.618/SRT/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8th Floor, RBL, 63/751, Chanod Colony, GIDC, s. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-II, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.:ASNPS 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.623/SRT/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Gufan Ahmed Chaudhary, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, 7th Floor, Fortune Square- Prop. Saba…

Shri Prakash F.Singh, Vapi vs. The ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 618/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai vs. Centaur Merchantile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 324/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ts Citizen Cooperative apart, according to Mavilayi. 166. In this context, Mavilayi holds that only the ratio decidendi of a judgment binds as a precedent. To elaborate on this proposition, Mavilayi refers to State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra [(1968) 2 SCR 154], which holds that 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 follows from the various observations made in it. Then, it quotes Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab[1919) 3 SCR 1059]. Though it was from the dissenting judgment…

Shri. Parswanath vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/304/2019HC Karnataka13 Sept 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Section 109Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)Section 397Section 482

…offence by intentionally aiding another to commit that offence that the charge of abetment against him would be expected to fail when the person alleged to have committed the offence is acquitted of that offence. The case of Faguna Kanta Nath [1959 Supp 2 SCR 15] lays this down. The observations of this Court in that case, at p. 7, bring out clearly the distinction in the case of persons instigating another or engaging in conspiracy with another on the one hand and that of a person aiding the person in committing a certain offence. The observations are: “It is not the prosecution case that the appell…

Dy CIT CC 2 (3), Mumbai vs. Ms Preity Zinta, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 6823/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Calicut

C.A. No.-007343-007350 - 2019Supreme Court12 Jan 2021

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

Section 147Section 19Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…d other two learned Judges held: 46 “It is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion but in regard to its ratio and the principle laid down therein.” (at page 657) 24. In State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (1968) 2 SCR 154, this Court held: “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 follows from the various observations made in it. On this topic this is what Earl of Halsbury L.C. said in Quinn v. Leathem [[1901] AC 495]: “Now before discuss…