How many judgments cite U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain?

18 judgments on BharatTax cite U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain (1 SCC 315), spanning 2006 to 2026.

U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain

1 SCC 315Reported decision2001#6432 most cited

What is U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain authority for?

When legislation specifically addresses a particular type of income, like horse races, the tax authorities cannot use a general provision to tax that income. Amendments to Section 194B of the Income Tax Act, inserting 'card game or other game of any sort', were intended to cover TV and quiz shows, not specifically horse racing.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain · Section 194B · Section 2(24)(ix) · horse races · general section · specific provision · game shows · quiz shows · amendment intention

Judgments citing U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain

S. Rajendran vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition)

The appeals are dismissed with

C.A. No.-007140 - 2022Supreme Court24 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Section 132Section 24Section 24(1)

…special provision.14 (III) In an eventuality where the contestation is between two special enactments, both having non-obstante clauses, the general rule is that later enactment must prevail over the earlier one.15 12 LIC of India v. DJ Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315. Relevant paragraph is as follows: “52. In determining whether a statute is a special or a general one, the focus must be on the principal subject-matter plus the particular perspective. For certain purposes, an Act may be general and for certain other purposes it may be special and we cannot blur distinctions when dealing with finer points…

Commr.of Customs (Import) Mumbai vs. M/S Ganpati Overseas Thr. Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma

C.A. No.-004735-004736 - 2009Supreme Court06 Oct 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 108Section 130

…lue shall be 49 determined using reasonable means as provided in Rule 8 i.e. the residual method. 38. In Rabindra Chandra Paul (supra), this court referred to its earlier decision in Eicher Tractors Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (2001) 1 SCC 315, and held as follows- 6. In Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Customs, this Court held that the principle for valuation of imported goods is found in Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides for the determination of the assessable value on the basis of the international sale price. Under the said Act, customs duty is chargeable…

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc

ITTA/108/2022HC Telangana25 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd

ITTA/94/2022HC Telangana24 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Principal Comnr. of Income Tax, Sambalpur Range vs. M/S. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd

ITA/96/2022HC Orissa17 Aug 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Servants of People Society

ITA/27/2022HC Delhi11 Feb 2022

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

…47. The general observations made the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the value declared in the Bills of Entry were being enhanced uniformly by the Department for a considerable 9 (2001) 1 SCC 315 10 (2019) 6 SCC 655 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 27 of 137 period of time was uncalled for. The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to advert to the crucial aspect that the importers had themselves accept…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Servants of People Society

ITA/26/2022HC Delhi11 Feb 2022

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…al section, such as 194B of the Act, to hold the assessee in default. In this regard, reliance was also placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain [1978] 4 SCC 16 and LIC v. D.J. Bahadur [1981] 1 SCC 315. 7. Thereafter, the learned representative for the assessee explained why the provisions of Section 194B of the Act are not applicable. It was pointed out that when Section 194B of the Act was amended in Page 13 of 25 ITA Nos. 1849 & 2248/Bang/2019 2001 to insert the words 'card game or other game of any sort', the intention was to cover TV shows…

Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

Bangalore Truf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 1848/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 201fSection 234BSection 234CSection 40

…al section, such as 194B of the Act, to hold the assessee in default. In this regard, reliance was also placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain [1978] 4 SCC 16 and LIC v. D.J. Bahadur [1981] 1 SCC 315. 7. Thereafter, the learned representative for the assessee explained why the provisions of Section 194B of the Act are not applicable. It was pointed out that when Section 194B of the Act was amended in 2001 to insert the words 'card game or other game of any sort', the intention was to cover TV shows and quiz shows. Correspondingly, another amend…

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT TDS 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6625/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar

Section 194BSection 201Section 201(1)

…ult. In this regard, reliance was also placed on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr.vs. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. (AIR 1979 SC 65, (1978) 4 SCC 16) and LIC vs. D.J. Bahadur and Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 2181, (1981) 1 SCC 315). 7. Thereafter, the learned representative for the assessee explained why the provisions of Section 194B of the Act are not applicable. It was pointed out that when Section 194B of the Act was amended in 2001 to insert the words 'card game or other game of any sort’, the intention was to cover TV shows and quiz shows. Correspondingly, another ame…

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Noida vs. M/S Sanjivani Non Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the

C.A. No.-018300-018305 - 2017Supreme Court10 Dec 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 14

…y of the special circumstances in Section 14(1) quoted earlier. It follows that unless the price actually paid for the particular transaction falls within the exceptions, the Customs Authorities are bound to assess the duty on the transaction value. 1(2001) 1 SCC 315 6 xxx xxx xxx 12. Rule 4(1) speaks of the transaction value. Utilisation of the definite article indicates that what should be accepted as the value for the purpose of assessment to customs duty is the price actually paid for the particular transaction, unless of course the price is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). “Pa…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. Galgotia Books & Department Store Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are allowed

ITA/1076/2018HC Delhi28 Sept 2018

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

Section 25Section 4Section 42Section 5Section 8Section 9

…e ameliorative measures for reconstruction of sick companies, and the purpose of the other is to provide for speedy recovery of debts of banks and financial institutions”, the rule laid down in a previous decision reported as LIC vs. D.J. Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315, to the following effect was noted :- “52. In determining whether a statute is a special or a general one, the focus must be on the principal subject- matter plus the particular perspective. For certain purposes, an Act may be general and for certain other purposes it may be special and we cannot blur distinctions when dealing with finer po…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Saldi Chits Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are allowed

ITA/143/2018HC Delhi09 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 25Section 4Section 42Section 5Section 8Section 9

Commnr. of Customs, Vishakhapatnam vs. M/S. Aggarwal Industries Ltd

The appeals are dismissed accordingly,

C.A. No.-002521-002521 - 2006Supreme Court17 Oct 2011

Section 14(1)

…n that the appellants paid to the supplier more than the contracted value. Under these circumstances, there are actually no grounds to reject the transaction value.” 7. Hence these appeals by the revenue. 1 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (SC) : (2001) 1 SCC 315 5 8. Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel, appearing for the revenue submitted that in the light of the invoices, in possession of the adjudicating authority, showing contemporaneous import of the crude sunflower seed oil at much higher price, the adjudicating authority was justified in invoking Rule 10A of CVR 1988 a…

The Commnr. of Customs(Gen) Mumbai vs. Abdulla Koyloth

The appeal is allowed, and the matter is remitted back

C.A. No.-001608-001608 - 2005Supreme Court29 Oct 2010

Section 108Section 130ESection 14

…ates to the manner of computing the assessable value of the imported goods. For the sake of ready reference, it would be useful to extract Sections 2(41), 14 (1) (as it stood at the relevant time) and 14(1-A) of the Act, which read as follows: 3 (2001) 1 SCC 315 4 (2009) 3 SCC 365 8 “2(41) ‘value’, in relation to any goods, means the value thereof determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14; 14. Valuation of goods for purposes of assessment.—(1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force where…

Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd vs. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed in part and to

C.A. No.-000009-000009 - 2007Supreme Court04 Jan 2007

For Respondent: Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

Section 241

…tate of A.P. [(2000) 6 SCC 579]; State of Rajasthan v. M/s Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. [(1969) 1 SCC 567], K.S. Subbiah Pillai v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1999) 3 SCC 170]; M/s Patnaik and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa [(1986) 4 SCC 16]; BSES Ltd. (Now Reliance Energy Ltd.) v. Fenner India Ltd. and Another [(2006) 2 SCC 728]. The said decisions, in our considered view, are not applicable herein. In Khadervali Sahib (supra), the question which arose for consideration was whether an award amounted to creation of or transfer of any fresh rights in respect of movable o…

Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. M/S. Prodelin India (P) Ltd

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

C.A. No.-003813-003813 - 2005Supreme Court31 Aug 2006

For Respondent: M/s Prodelin India (P) Ltd

…earlier judgments of the CESTAT wherein correct view has been taken by it. He also cited some judgments on Rule 9(1)(c) of 1988 Rules and on Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. In Eicher Tractors Ltd. Haryana vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, (2001) 1 SCC 315, this Court, in paragraph 6, held as under: "6. Under the Act customs duty is chargeable on goods. According to Section 14(1) of the Act, the assessment http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11 of duty is to be made on the value of the goods. The value may be fixed by the Central Governemnt under Section 14(2). Where the va…