Taramati Chandulal Sejpal v. State of Maharashtra

2 SCC 17Reported decision1981#13099 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Judgments citing Taramati Chandulal Sejpal v. State of Maharashtra

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S. M.M. Engineers and Consultants

ITA/72/2022HC Orissa08 Jan 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. India Hiv Aids Alliance

ITA/72/2022HC Delhi01 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

For Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General alongwith Mr

Section 132(4)Section 3(1)Section 482

…of suffering from the vice of non-application of mind. In support of this argument, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court: - “(i) Taramati Chandulal Sejpal v. State of Maharashtra; (1981) 2 SCC 17; (ii) Icchudevi Choraria v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 531; (iii) Kamla Kanyalal Khushalani v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 1 SCC 748; (iv) Shalini Soni v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 544; (v) Ibrahim Ahamad Batti v. State of Gujarat, (1982) 3 SCC 440; (vi) Ahmed Nasar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 8 SCC 473; (vii) Kam…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. India Hiv Aids Alliance

ITA/73/2022HC Delhi01 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

For Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General alongwith Mr

Section 132(4)Section 3(1)Section 482

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

…hich are necessary to be taken in placing any reliance on the evidence of voice identification. 32 [Ed.: Para 32 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./18/2011 dated 5-4-2011.]. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra [(1976) 2 SCC 17] this Court made following observations: (SCC p. 26, para 19) 19. We think that the High Court was quite right in holding that the tape-records of speeches were 27 documents‘, as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following condi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-C2 vs. Rajeev Bahl

ITA/40/2019HC Delhi12 Sept 2019

Bench: The Family Court By Way Of A Divorce Petition Bearing Hma No. 609/2012, The Relevant Details Of Which Are Referred To Hereinafter. 3. The Petitioner/Wife Is The Respondent In The Aforesaid Divorce Petition Which Was Filed On 26.09.2012 By The Respondent/Husband Seeking

Section 13(1)(ia)

…cuments under section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing than photographs, and were admissible after satisfying the three conditions as laid down inter alia in RM Malkani (supra). 5 (1970) 2 SCC 340 6 (1973) 1 SCC 471 7 (1976) 2 SCC 17 _______________________________________________________________________ C.M.(M) 40/2019 page 8 of 46 (v) X vs. Hospital Z8 : in which a 2-Judge bench of the Supreme Court has held that the disclosure by a doctor of a serious…

National Travel Services vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VIII

C.A. No.-002068-002071 - 2012Supreme Court18 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 23A

…for the individual benefit of a shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits;” 6) This provision came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in C.I.T., Andhra Pradesh vs. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar, (1972) 4 SCC 531. In the context of the Assessee being a Hindu Undivided Family, the question of law set out in the aforesaid judgment is as follows:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs.5,790 and Rs.39,085 could be deemed to be the dividend income of the Hindu undivided family in the respective assessment years?”…

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

ITTA/94/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-O9 vs. M/S Tinna Finex Ltd

ITA/113/2016HC Delhi15 Feb 2016

Bench: The Court On 18Th March, 2010 & The Nbw Was Cancelled & The Plaintiff

Section 138

…amrao Bhikaji Bodhke Vs. Mohammed Ashfaq 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1281, Omana Jose Vs. State of Kerala 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 6347 (DB), M.K. Products Vs. Blue Ocean Exports (P) Ltd. 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 4496, Subhash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (2013) 2 SCC 17, Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 15 SCC 613 and Mallikarjun Kodagali Vs. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752. M. Such an interpretation is also conducive to keeping the stream of justice clean and orderly and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of jurisdictions. N. A Civil Court per se is not empowered to…