State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal

5 SCC 60Reported decision1996#2347 most cited
49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal · Mangilal Pindwal · Income Tax Act · Section 153A · Section 153B · Section 132 · Section 158BE · search assessment · block assessment · extension of limitation · audi alteram partem · DTAA

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 142(2A)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 90Section 90ASection 132 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 153(3)section 90aaudi alteram partemextension of limitationsection 142(2a)section 153bsection 90principal commissioner of income-taxsection 158bsection 158section 12

Judgments citing State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal

CIT -15(2), New Delhi vs. Logix Buildestate Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1380/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 250

…is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P. [West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn.v. State of U.P., (2002) 2 SCC 645], State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal [State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal, (1996) 5 SCC 60], Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga& Co. [Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga& Co., (1969) 1 SCC 255] and A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. I.S. Michael [A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. I.S. Michael, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 318 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 244 : AIR 1963 SC 933] . In West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. case [West U.P. Sugar Mills As…

M/S. Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 4712/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153BSection 90

…is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P. [West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn.v. State of U.P., (2002) 2 SCC 645], State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal [State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal, (1996) 5 SCC 60], Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga& Co. [Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga& Co., (1969) 1 SCC 255] and A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. I.S. Michael [A.L.V.R.S.T. 6ITA Nos. 2772/Del/2016 & ors ACIT Vs. Indrani Sathe & ors Veerappa Chettiar v. I.S. Michael, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 318 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 244 : AIR 1963 SC 933] .…

Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy

C.A. No.-009525 - 2018Supreme Court03 May 2023

Bench: The Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise ........................ 9 Before The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ............ 18 Rival Submissions .................................................................................... 24 Points For Determination ........................................................................... 31 The Principles In The Cited Decisions ......................................................... 33 Application Of The Principles & Twin Test ................................................ 55 Whether Re-Look At Classification Of The Product In Question Justified ........ 72 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76

Section 11

…ies to establish that the product is a cosmetic besides not disproving the factual evidence in favour of the respondent. 9.4. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Sharma Chemical Works: (2003) 5 SCC 60 to submit that merely because a product is sold across counters and without a prescription, it would not per se lead to the conclusion of it being not a medicament. The method of usage of AHAHO is clearly stated on its label; and Materia Medica clearly states the therapeutic properties of ingredients used. It has also been submitted that severa…

Income Tax Officer vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia

C.A. No.-000911-000911 - 2022Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

…centring around the issue the Court held that the CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 Page 48 of 67 substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case [(1996) 5 SCC 60] this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case [(1969) 1 SCC 255] a three-Judge Bench of this…

Archit Corporation, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 683/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 683/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Archit Corporation Llp, I.T.O., (Earlier Known As Archit Corporation) Vs. Ward-2(3), 54, Ganesh Krupa, Bhavnagar. Vijayraj Nagar, Bhavnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 36Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 683/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Archit Corporation LLP, I.T.O., (earlier known as Archit Corporation) Vs. Ward-2(3), 54, Ganesh Krupa, Bhavnagar. Vijayraj Nagar, Bhavnagar. PAN: AAHFA5013E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/11/2021 घोषण…

M/S. Kiri Dyes and Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1849/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, C.I.T.D.R with Shri Raj Deep Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Asset. Appeal(s) by No(s) Year(s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1849/Ahd/2016 2003-04 M/s. Kiri Dyes & A.C.I.T, Chemicals Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), 53, Manekbaug Society, Ahmedabad. Lane No.7, Gate No.3, (Revenue) Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006. PAN No. AAACK9025C (Assessee) 2. 2295/Ahd/2016 2003-04 D.C.I.T, M/s. Kiri Dyes & Circle-2(1)(2), Chemicals Ltd., Ahm…

Commissioner of Central Excise Etc vs. M/S.Aishwarya Industries Through Its Managing Director Etc

C.A. No.-006703-006710 - 2009Supreme Court13 Apr 2018

Bench: Us.

…as a preparation for care of skin or as a medicament. The product was mainly supplied to the Defence Department for use by military personnel who are posted in high-altitude areas. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Sharma Chemical Works (2003) 5 SCC 60, this Court held that in interpreting provisions of a statute like the Excise Act, the popular meaning as understood by the users should be applied and not the scientific or technical meaning. 49. As held in Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd., the factum of overwhelming use of 'Coconut Oil' as 'Hair Oil' in most parts of the country cannot be ignored. No one…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat vs. M/S. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd

C.A. No.-007849-007849 - 2004Supreme Court10 Nov 2006
For Respondent: M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd
Section 11Section 11ASection 4A

…products whether or not they contain subsidiary pharmaceutical or antiseptic constituents, or are held out as having subsidiary curative or prophylactic value." In Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Sharma Chemical Works [(2003) 5 SCC 60], this Court noticed its earlier decisions to hold that onus of proof to show that a particular product is classifiable under one entry or the other is on the Revenue. "Banphool Oil" was held therein as classifiable as an Ayurvedic Medicament under sub-heading 3003.30 stating : "\005Mere fact that a product is sold across the counters and…

M/S. Quinn India Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad

In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the

C.A. No.-003354-003354 - 2001Supreme Court11 May 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise,Hyderabad
Section 11ASection 35L

…covered under tariff item No. 3402.90. It is also settled law that the onus or burden to show that the product falls within a particular tariff item is always on the Revenue. [See: Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Sharma Chemical Works [(2003) 5 SCC 60] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Vicco Laboratories [(2005) 4 SCC 17]. In our view, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. In the circumstances, we find merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant-assessee. We are also of the view that the Tribunal has erred in inte…