Union of India & Ors. v. Dhanvanti Devi

6 SCC 44Reported decision1996#2350 most cited

What is Union of India & Ors. v. Dhanvanti Devi authority for?

A court's order is not binding if it has not applied its mind to the specific facts and decided the issues involved.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v Dhanvanti Devi · 6 SCC 44 · binding precedent · High Court · application of mind · specific facts · judicial decisions

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 132Section 144ASection 148Section 153CSection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 274(2)section 153(a)section 135asection 144asection 114section 255(4)section 148bsanction under section 151section 136violation of natural justicesection 43(3)

Judgments citing Union of India & Ors. v. Dhanvanti Devi

Quartz Commecial Pvt Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/10/2025HC Delhi21 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 483

…entirety and the observations made therein should receive consideration in the light of the questions raised before it. [See Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills [(2002) 3 SCC 496 : JT (2002) 1 SC 482] , Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi [(1996) 6 SCC 44] , Nalini Mahajan (Dr.) v. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) [(2002) 257 ITR 123 (Del)] , State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. [(1991) 4 SCC 139] , A-One Granites v. State of U.P. [(2001) 3 SCC 537 : 2001 AIR SCW 848] and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111] ] 146. Although decisi…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.78 to 80 /CTK/2009 /CTK/2009 Assessment Year Assessment Years :1985-86, 1989-90 & 1993 90 & 1993-94 The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-2(1), Beharibag, Beharibag, Chandini Chandini Chowk, Chowk, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAATP 2215 Q (Appell…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2009[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.78 to 80 /CTK/2009 /CTK/2009 Assessment Year Assessment Years :1985-86, 1989-90 & 1993 90 & 1993-94 The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-2(1), Beharibag, Beharibag, Chandini Chandini Chowk, Chowk, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAATP 2215 Q (Appell…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2009[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1985-86

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.78 to 80 /CTK/2009 /CTK/2009 Assessment Year Assessment Years :1985-86, 1989-90 & 1993 90 & 1993-94 The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-2(1), Beharibag, Beharibag, Chandini Chandini Chowk, Chowk, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAATP 2215 Q (Appell…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Imperial Housing Ventures P. Ltd

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

ITA/86/2022HC Delhi13 Apr 2022

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

Section 5Section 5(3)Section 8(3)

…5.09.2025 14:40:47 Signature Not Verified LPA 362/2020 & W.P.(CRL) 86/2022 Page 13 of 53 Mills [(2002) 3 SCC 496 : JT (2002) 1 SC 482] , Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi [(1996) 6 SCC 44] , Nalini Mahajan (Dr.) v. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) [(2002) 257 ITR 123 (Del)] , State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. [(1991) 4 SCC 139] , A-One Granites v. State of U.P. [(2001) 3 SCC 537 : 2001 AIR SCW 848] and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111] ] 146. Although decisions are galore…

Smt Siddamuthamma vs. The Deputy Commissioner

The appeal is dismissed

WA/1142/2021HC Karnataka12 Apr 2022

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

…evi and Others2. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has argued in support of the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal. 1 (2002) 3 SCC 533 2 (1996) 6 SCC 44 16 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that, the land in question was sold in favour of Kamalamma under two separate registered sale deeds dated 04.11.1991 and 05.04.1994. Thereafterwards t…

M/S. Lotus Buildtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 5837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…is binding; --(ii) Observations (obiter dicta) have no binding force: as held in (i) Rekha Mukerjee v. Ashish K. Das (2005) 3 SCC 427; 440-47 (para 29); (ii) Orient Paper and Inds. Ltd. v. State if Irussa AIR 1991 SC 672}. (iii) UOI Vs. Bhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44 para 9; (iv) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197, 206 (para 23); --decision applicable to facts of the case is not to be treated as a precedent: as held in (i) National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Swarna Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297. --observation or simply what was done in a given case, without laying down the law cannot be read as a p…

M/S. Lotus Buildtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 5836/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…is binding; --(ii) Observations (obiter dicta) have no binding force: as held in (i) Rekha Mukerjee v. Ashish K. Das (2005) 3 SCC 427; 440-47 (para 29); (ii) Orient Paper and Inds. Ltd. v. State if Irussa AIR 1991 SC 672}. (iii) UOI Vs. Bhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44 para 9; (iv) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197, 206 (para 23); --decision applicable to facts of the case is not to be treated as a precedent: as held in (i) National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Swarna Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297. --observation or simply what was done in a given case, without laying down the law cannot be read as a p…

M/S. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

ITA 6947/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…is binding; --(ii) Observations (obiter dicta) have no binding force: as held in (i) Rekha Mukerjee v. Ashish K. Das (2005) 3 SCC 427; 440-47 (para 29); (ii) Orient Paper and Inds. Ltd. v. State if Irussa AIR 1991 SC 672}. (iii) UOI Vs. Bhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44 para 9; (iv) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197, 206 (para 23); --decision applicable to facts of the case is not to be treated as a precedent: as held in (i) National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Swarna Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297. --observation or simply what was done in a given case, without laying down the law cannot be read as a p…