State of Punjab v. Amarjit

4 SCC 734Reported decision2011#20763 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 143(3)Section 145A

Issues it is cited on

section 10(37)enhanced compensationmalabar industrialerroneous and prejudicialsection 28income-tax officersection 263section 10section 26income from other sourcessection 143(1)section 142(1)

Judgments citing State of Punjab v. Amarjit

Baljit Kaur, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4073/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Pcit, 726, Sector-13, U.E., Karnal, Vs. Office Of The Principal Haryana. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Dcit, H.No.142-B, Model Town Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-12, Extension, Ludhiana, Karnal, Haryana. Punjab. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…see has also relied on following citation in support of the argument before the A.O. Jai Singh Karwal, Vs. PCIT a) CIT Vs Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 0001 b) C.I.T. vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 0498 (SC) c) State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh (2011) 4 SCC 734 d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chet Ram HUF Civil Appeal No.13053/2017 dated. Sept. 12,2017 e) Union of India and Ors Vs Hari Singh and Others Civil Appeal No. 15041 of 2017 Dt. 15.09.2017 f) Income Tax 0fficer-TDS2, Rajkot Vs Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri Civil Appeal No. 27333 of 2017 Dt. 10.11.2017. 8. After considering the reply given by the A…

Baljit Kaur, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1208/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Pcit, 726, Sector-13, U.E., Karnal, Vs. Office Of The Principal Haryana. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Dcit, H.No.142-B, Model Town Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-12, Extension, Ludhiana, Karnal, Haryana. Punjab. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…see has also relied on following citation in support of the argument before the A.O. Jai Singh Karwal, Vs. PCIT a) CIT Vs Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 0001 b) C.I.T. vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 0498 (SC) c) State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh (2011) 4 SCC 734 d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chet Ram HUF Civil Appeal No.13053/2017 dated. Sept. 12,2017 e) Union of India and Ors Vs Hari Singh and Others Civil Appeal No. 15041 of 2017 Dt. 15.09.2017 f) Income Tax 0fficer-TDS2, Rajkot Vs Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri Civil Appeal No. 27333 of 2017 Dt. 10.11.2017. 8. After considering the reply given by the A…

Jai Singh Karwal, Hansi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 203Section 263Section 28

…e has also relied on following citation in support of the argument before the A.O. 6 Jai Singh Karwal, Vs. PCIT a) CIT Vs Ghanshyam HUF (2009) 315 ITR 0001 b) C.I.T. vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 0498 (SC) c) State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh (2011) 4 SCC 734 d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chet Ram HUF Civil Appeal No.13053/2017 dated. Sept. 12,2017 e) Union of India and Ors Vs Hari Singh and Others Civil Appeal No. 15041 of 2017 Dt. 15.09.2017 f) Income Tax Officer-TDS2, Rajkot Vs Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri Civil Appeal No. 27333 of 2017 Dt. 10.11.2017. 8. After considering the reply given by the Asse…

Barunei Roller Flour Mill (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1

In the result, the award of the maximum uniform rate for the

ITA/1/2022HC Orissa03 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

…value as well as the amount awarded for others losses suffered, inasmuch as, grant of solatium on any other amount is impermissible. (ii) In support of his contention reliance has been placed on the case of State of Punjab v. Amarjit reported in (2011) 4 SCC 734 (para 11), wherein the Supreme Court of India while dealing with this issue held that the additional amount under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act and not on any other amount and that Solatium and additional amount are also not payable on the damages/expenses that may be awarded under second to sixth factors under Sec…

State of Punjab v. Amarjit (4 SCC 734) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax