Transcore v. Union of India & Anr.

1 SCC 125Supreme Court of India2008#11953 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2023.

Judgments citing Transcore v. Union of India & Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi vs. M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte Ltd

ITA/564/2023HC Delhi03 Oct 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

…uld have examined this aspect of the matter as to what right the respondent had acquired by submission of the plan for construction of the high-rise building before its application was rejected by a statutory provision.” This Court further observed: 69 (1995) 1 SCC 125 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.04.2024 22:29 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:22.04.2024 22:30 Signature Not Verified WP(C) 12983/2022 & other batch matters Page 114 of 177 “15. It is well settled that no malice can be imputed to the legislature. Any legislative provision can b…

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2, Delhi vs. Pt Lp Display Indonesia

ITA/145/2021HC Delhi21 Sept 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 34Section 89

…lomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. [1897 AC 22] (at pp. 27, 30-31, 43, 56) to emphasise the distinction between the shareholders and the company. This point of view was emphasised by this Court also by Chandrachud, C.J. in Western Coalfields Ltd. case [(1982) 1 SCC 125] relying on Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India [((1970) 1 SCC 248] where this Court held that a company registered under the Companies Act was a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members. Property of the company was not the property of the shareholders. These propositions, in our opinion, do not have any appli…

M/S Mohan Bhandar vs. Vijaya Bank

WP/37112/2016HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar Writ Petition Nos. 27975-77/2018 (Gm-Drt) C/W W.P.Nos. 48475/2016 & 37112-37117/2016 (Gm-Res )

Section 138Section 25

…h was also the subject matter of order dated 21.03.2016 30 passed by the District Magistrate, Mysuru District under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act. 21. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRANSCORE vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 had an occasion to consider a similar issue and points which came to be formulated by their lordships by their Lordships for determination was to the following effect. “37. Three points arise for determination in these cases. They are as follows: (i) Whether the banks or financial institutions having elected to seek their reme…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10A(2)(c)

…of application for sanction, it would not be available to the person or party applying. 31. The decision in Gani J. Khatri [(1992) 3 SCC 455] was followed by this Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Terra Firma Investment and Trading (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 125] That case arose as a result of amendment introduced in the Act in the year 1990 restricting building heights within the limits of Calcutta Municipal Corporation to 13.5 metres. Applications for sanction pending for construction with height above 13.5 metres were rejected because of the above restriction. In that case also the applicants claim…

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Ashik Wollen Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.03/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11) The Dcit – 4(1), M/S Ashik Wollen Mills बनाम/ Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Shreeji Krupa, Mumbai – 400 020. 9, Krishnlal Zaveri Marg, Cp Tank, Mumbai – 400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca5048F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…The notices u/s 13(2) of SARFESI Act, 2002 is not merely a show cause notice but in effect it operates as an attachment/injunction restraining the borrower from disposing of the secured assets (Ref Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Travancore v UOI (2008) 1 SCC 125(SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Goyal v.CCIT(2016) 289 CTR 541(Del. HC) ) . The notice u/s 13(2) , 13(4) read with Section 35 of SARFESI Act, 2002 entitle the lender to proceed to sale by way of public auction the secured assets. Section 13(2) , 13(4) r.w.s. Sec. 35 of SARFESI Act, 2002 are reproduced hereunder: Sectio…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd

ITA/248/2016HC Delhi23 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

…in the light of the specific recital in the agreement of sale itself, further submitted that the letter dated 12.12.2011 of AEVP also makes it clear that property No.6 is a residential land. Placing reliance upon Transcore v. Union of India & Anr.; (2008) 1 SCC 125, it is further contended by the learned ASG that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.02.2016 which is the subject matter of LPA No.221/2016 filed by HUDCO, is erroneous since the same runs contrary to the settled principle of law that a financial institution can take recourse to LPAs No.221, 223, 225, 248 & 249 of 2016 &…

Pr. CIT Central-3 vs. M/S Seagram Distilleries Pvt.Ltd

ITA/225/2016HC Delhi06 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…in the light of the specific recital in the agreement of sale itself, further submitted that the letter dated 12.12.2011 of AEVP also makes it clear that property No.6 is a residential land. Placing reliance upon Transcore v. Union of India & Anr.; (2008) 1 SCC 125, it is further contended by the learned ASG that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.02.2016 which is the subject matter of LPA No.221/2016 filed by HUDCO, is erroneous since the same runs contrary to the settled principle of law that a financial institution can take recourse to LPAs No.221, 223, 225, 248 & 249 of 2016 &…

Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta

Appeals are allowed and show cause

C.A. No.-005572-005573 - 2000Supreme Court27 Mar 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta
Section 2

…judgment have approached this Court. The appellants submitted that the impugned order of the CEGAT is contrary to a series of judgments of this Court. Reference has been made to the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys vs. CCE reported in (1991) Supp 1 SCC 125. The facts of that case are very akin to the facts of the case in hand. In the said case, the appellant is a manufacturer of pipes, tubes and poles made of iron and steel. These products are generally used by the telephone and telegraph departments of the Government of India, but can also be used for purposes of transmission and lighting.…

Transcore v. Union of India & Anr. (1 SCC 125) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax