Union of India v. Atic

3 SCC 575Reported decision1984#20381 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2015.

Judgments citing Union of India v. Atic

Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Detergents India Ltd

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

…tion clause persons, objects, or things that would not otherwise be included within the “means” part. 24. The High Court is also wrong in saying that its view is supported by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Atic Industries Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 575. On facts, Atic’s case 32 Page 33 JUDGMENT did not deal with holding and subsidiary companies. Atul Products Limited held 50% of the share capital of Atic Industries which would not enable Atul products to be called the holding company of Atic Industries. Further, this Court held:- “5. The second ground on which the…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Detergents India Ltd

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

…tion clause persons, objects, or things that would not otherwise be included within the “means” part. 24. The High Court is also wrong in saying that its view is supported by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Atic Industries Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 575. On facts, Atic’s case 32 Page 33 JUDGMENT did not deal with holding and subsidiary companies. Atul Products Limited held 50% of the share capital of Atic Industries which would not enable Atul products to be called the holding company of Atic Industries. Further, this Court held:- “5. The second ground on which the…

Flash Laboratories vs. Collector of Central Excise

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-005619-005619 - 1994Supreme Court20 Dec 2002
For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi
Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5619 of 1994 Appeal (civil) 7216 of 2000 PETITIONER: Flash Laboratories Ltd. RESPONDENT: Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/12/2002 BENCH: M.B. Shah, K.G. Balakrishnan & D.M. Dharmadhikari. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Both these appeals are filed by Messrs. Flash Laboratries Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture of tooth paste ("Prudent"), falling under chapter Heading 3306.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant has been selling its…

Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. I.T.E.C. (P) Ltd., Bombay

The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above, in regard to

C.A. No.-000736-000736 - 1995Supreme Court18 Sept 2002
For Respondent: I.T.E.C.(P) LTD., BOMBAY
Section 11Section 4

…dge Bench of this Court upheld the constitutional validity of the said definition by reading it down. The validity of the same definition again came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Actic Industries Ltd., [1984] 3 SCC 575. Following the judgment in Bombay Tyre International (supra), speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J., as he then was, observed: "It is essential to attract the applicability of the first part of the definition that the assessee and the person alleged to be a related person must have interest, direct or indirect, in the business of each other. Each of…

Union of India v. Atic (3 SCC 575) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax