State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh

7 SCC 639Reported decision2011#14413 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145 Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B Section 80JJAA Section 139A(1)

Issues it is cited on

prescribed transfer person india business document interest

Judgments citing State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.652- 653-980/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2020-21 The Dy. Commissioner of Dussters Total Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 332/1, Corporate Miller, 3rd Floor, Income Tax, Thimmaiah Road, 3rd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore. Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore – 560 052. . PAN – AACCD 5989 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .12.2025 O R D E R…

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 80J

SRIMANTHI KANTHIMATHI KUMARASWAMI MUDALIAR KALYANAMANDAPAM TRUST,CHITTOOR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 690/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Section 12A

…bly be performed, applies, as held in: Presidential Poll vs Unknown on 5 June, 1974, (1974) 2 SCC 33. Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC) State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 AIR 1082 [SC] State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the literal interpretation of clause (iii) leads to absurd results and therefore to be eschewed, as held by the Apex Court in K.P.Va…

DHANRAJ KOCHAR HUF,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1926/CHNY/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dhanraj Kochar Huf, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 33, Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 079. Central Circle – Ii(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaahd2785H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of One Day. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 17Section 54

…eel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (supra), while referring to the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placed on the same preposition and referred to other judgements in the case of Ameer Mihaj v. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Others (2018) 7 SCC 639, Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi in Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022 and M/s. Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr. In SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2022, held that no title could be transferred with respect to an immovable property on the basis of even registered POA nor any title would confer on the GPA over the property even in respect…

SRI SANKARAHEALTH CENTRE,VELLORE vs. CIT-EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 781/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - V. Sri Sankara Health Centre, The Cit (Exemptions), 8, Katpadi Road, Chennai. Mottur Village, Vellore-632 006. [Pan: Aakas 6655 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 12ASection 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

…owed in the following cases;- o Presidential Poll vs Unknown on 5 June, 1974, (1974) 2 SCC 33. o Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC) o State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 AIR 1082 [SC] o State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 o Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 (SC) o CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) o Emperor v. Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar, AIR 1938 Bom 427 4. We note that the assessee Trust filed an application in Form No.10AB on 19.04.2023 seeking regular approval for five (5) years under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-s…

SANJAY S JAIN,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 90/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.90/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjay S. Jain, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, B1/2017, Regent Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtpj4942N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022

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

…Life Insurance Corp Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410 held that the law does not contemplate or require the performance of an impossible act – Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639], applied this maxim and held that thus, where the law creates a duty or a charge and the party is disabled to perform it without any fault on his part and has no control over it, the law will in general excuse him. Therefore, we note that based on the facts and circumstances, there is no evidence with the Department that assessee has received the…

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30917/2016HC Karnataka10 Nov 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

…taxis, which exist under the CTS Scheme, are not required to install a panic button, even this does not imply that the aggregators are being discriminated against. Relying on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v Narmada Bachao Andolan & Ano. [ ( 2011) 7 SCC 639 ], the learned Senior counsel has argued that a conduct is said to be discriminatory if it is unjust, unfair action in favour of one against another or involves an element of intentional and purposeful differentiation and further involves an element of unfavourable bias, and unfair classification. However, in the present case there is neither…