Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

7 SCC 221Reported decision2016#16058 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Housing Bank

ITA/673/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…nd attention. There should be an element of honesty attached to the defence and the explanation given by the assessee and there should be absence of any pretence, deceit or fraud (see paragraph 184 and onward in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221) 18. Questioning the bona fides of the respondent-assessee bank, learned counsel for the Revenue had submitted and referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirming the order of penalty. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had held that the respondent-assessee had paid advance tax for the Assessment Year 20…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. National Housing Bank

ITA/636/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…nd attention. There should be an element of honesty attached to the defence and the explanation given by the assessee and there should be absence of any pretence, deceit or fraud (see paragraph 184 and onward in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221) 18. Questioning the bona fides of the respondent-assessee bank, learned counsel for the Revenue had submitted and referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirming the order of penalty. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had held that the respondent-assessee had paid advance tax for the Assessment Year 20…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Housing Bank

ITA/625/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…nd attention. There should be an element of honesty attached to the defence and the explanation given by the assessee and there should be absence of any pretence, deceit or fraud (see paragraph 184 and onward in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221) 18. Questioning the bona fides of the respondent-assessee bank, learned counsel for the Revenue had submitted and referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirming the order of penalty. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had held that the respondent-assessee had paid advance tax for the Assessment Year 20…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. National Housing Bank

ITA/667/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…nd attention. There should be an element of honesty attached to the defence and the explanation given by the assessee and there should be absence of any pretence, deceit or fraud (see paragraph 184 and onward in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221) 18. Questioning the bona fides of the respondent-assessee bank, learned counsel for the Revenue had submitted and referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirming the order of penalty. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had held that the respondent-assessee had paid advance tax for the Assessment Year 20…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. National Housing Bank

ITA/672/2017HC Delhi28 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…nd attention. There should be an element of honesty attached to the defence and the explanation given by the assessee and there should be absence of any pretence, deceit or fraud (see paragraph 184 and onward in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221) 18. Questioning the bona fides of the respondent-assessee bank, learned counsel for the Revenue had submitted and referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirming the order of penalty. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had held that the respondent-assessee had paid advance tax for the Assessment Year 20…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions

ITTA/672/2017HC Telangana15 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (7 SCC 221) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax