T. Subramanian v. State of T.N

1 SCC 401Reported decision1988#1823 most cited
62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing T. Subramanian v. State of T.N

Sundaresh Bhatt vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

C.A. No.-007667 - 2021Supreme Court26 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 13(1)(a)Section 14(4)Section 33(2)Section 33(5)Section 60(5)Section 62(1)

…IMITED 21. Mr. Gaurav Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent No.8 – M/s. Kanter Steel India Private Limited has also supported the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.7 - Welspun and contended that the private sale process initiated 24 (2022) 1 SCC 401 Page 21 of 59 Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 by the respondent No.2 - Liquidator has the potential of fetching greater value for the larger good of the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and deserves to be continued. Referring to the offer of ₹431 crores made by the appellant under the Second Swiss Challenge…

M/S Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2290/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ravipratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.2290 /Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/s. Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust, vs. DCIT, SCO 109 – 110, Sector 43B, Central Circle 4, Chandigarh. New Delhi. (PAN : AAATG5827B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ravipratap Mall, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.02.2022 Date of Order : 23.02.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : The aforesaid appeal has been filed by…

M/S.S B Minerals vs. State of Karnataka

WP/17000/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15432/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S Gavisiddeswara Enterprises vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/17583/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

Smt.R.Mallamma vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31145/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

S V Srinivasulu S/O Late S.V.Chetty vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/15795/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

Sri. M.Srinivasulu vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15985/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S Mehboob Transport Company vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15954/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S. S.B Minerals vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31129/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthiah & Bros vs. State of Karnataka

WP/16145/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31148/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

Sri.S.A.Thawab vs. State of Karnataka

WP/10712/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S B Ashwathnarayana Singh & Co vs. State of Karnataka & Others

WP/31327/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

H N Premakumar S/O Late H.N.N. Setty vs. State of Karnataka Rep by Its Secretary

WP/6721/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

Banashankari Iron Ore Mines vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/31184/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

WP/29222/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports vs. State of Karnataka

WP/31191/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S Trident Minerals & Others vs. State of Karnataka

WP/30928/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

M/S Nadeem Minerals vs. State of Karnataka

WP/15809/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…d to refund of tax collected and in this regard, he relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006], Salonah Tea Company Limited vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and others, [(1988) 1 SCC 401] and -: 213 :- U.P.Pollution Control Board vs. Kanoria Industrial Limited [(2001) 2 SCC 549]. (v) Summarizing his arguments, he contended that Section 98-A of the Act, empowers the State Government to levy FDT at 8% sales consideration in respect of for…

T. Subramanian v. State of T.N (1 SCC 401) — Cited in 62 Judgments | BharatTax