Union of India v. Modi Rubber Ltd.

4 SCC 66Reported decision1984#11619 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 249(3)section 271aac(1)share capital and share premiumsection 271aacsection 271aaaddition under section 68section 271asection 249section 270delay in filing appeal

Judgments citing Union of India v. Modi Rubber Ltd.

August Jewellery Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1457/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…at unless mala fides or culpable negligence is established, the benefit of Section 5 must not be denied. A bona fide lapse must be viewed leniently, as the objective of limitation is not to punish litigants. The Court in O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh (1984) 4 SCC 66 = AIR 1984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several earlier judgments i…

August Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…at unless mala fides or culpable negligence is established, the benefit of Section 5 must not be denied. A bona fide lapse must be viewed leniently, as the objective of limitation is not to punish litigants. The Court in O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh (1984) 4 SCC 66 = AIR 1984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several earlier judgments i…

August Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1419/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…at unless mala fides or culpable negligence is established, the benefit of Section 5 must not be denied. A bona fide lapse must be viewed leniently, as the objective of limitation is not to punish litigants. The Court in O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh (1984) 4 SCC 66 = AIR 1984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several earlier judgments i…

M/S N. G. Group, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(2)(, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 503/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S N.G. Group The Income Tax Officer Plot No.8, Sector 11 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Off Juinagar Railway Station, Vsrccl, Vashi Vs. Sanpada, Navi Mumbai–400703 Navi Mumbai –400709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01-11-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, SR. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (ii) In O.P. Kathpaliaa v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 66], a Bench of three Judges had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned. (iii) In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Ors. [(1969) 1 SCR 1006], a Bench of three Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or…

Jalaram Industries vs. Union of India

WP/6114/2020HC Karnataka04 Jan 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 5

…of the Apex Court in Unicorn Industries Vs. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 492 where Apex Court has declared the judgment in Bajaj Auto to be per incuriam. It was also held by the Apex Court that the judgment in Union of India Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., (1986) 4 SCC 66 was not considered earlier in Bajaj Auto and in S.R.D. Nutrients v. CCE (2018) 1 SCC 105. In the case of Modi Rubber it was clearly held that the exemption of Excise Duty under the Act of 1944 could not be extended to exempt the levy introduced by the Finance Act. 59 The Exemption notification No.11/2017 dated 30.06.2017 exempts t…

Thrishul Zarda Pouches vs. Union of India

WP/713/2020HC Karnataka04 Jan 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 5

…of the Apex Court in Unicorn Industries Vs. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 492 where Apex Court has declared the judgment in Bajaj Auto to be per incuriam. It was also held by the Apex Court that the judgment in Union of India Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., (1986) 4 SCC 66 was not considered earlier in Bajaj Auto and in S.R.D. Nutrients v. CCE (2018) 1 SCC 105. In the case of Modi Rubber it was clearly held that the exemption of Excise Duty under the Act of 1944 could not be extended to exempt the levy introduced by the Finance Act. 59 The Exemption notification No.11/2017 dated 30.06.2017 exempts t…

Harsh International Flavour vs. Union of India

WP/6122/2020HC Karnataka04 Jan 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 5

…of the Apex Court in Unicorn Industries Vs. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 492 where Apex Court has declared the judgment in Bajaj Auto to be per incuriam. It was also held by the Apex Court that the judgment in Union of India Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., (1986) 4 SCC 66 was not considered earlier in Bajaj Auto and in S.R.D. Nutrients v. CCE (2018) 1 SCC 105. In the case of Modi Rubber it was clearly held that the exemption of Excise Duty under the Act of 1944 could not be extended to exempt the levy introduced by the Finance Act. 59 The Exemption notification No.11/2017 dated 30.06.2017 exempts t…

Fast Track Packers Private Limited vs. Union of India

WP/52374/2019HC Karnataka04 Jan 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Section 5

…of the Apex Court in Unicorn Industries Vs. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 492 where Apex Court has declared the judgment in Bajaj Auto to be per incuriam. It was also held by the Apex Court that the judgment in Union of India Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., (1986) 4 SCC 66 was not considered earlier in Bajaj Auto and in S.R.D. Nutrients v. CCE (2018) 1 SCC 105. In the case of Modi Rubber it was clearly held that the exemption of Excise Duty under the Act of 1944 could not be extended to exempt the levy introduced by the Finance Act. 59 The Exemption notification No.11/2017 dated 30.06.2017 exempts t…

M/S. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7042/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Neel Kanth Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)Section 80I

…d Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumar (1969) 1 SCR 1006; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi (1979) 3 SCR 694; Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan (1970) 3 SCR 694; O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) and others (1984) 4 SCC 66; State of Nagaland v. Lipok (2005) 3 SCC 752; New India Insurane Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra (1975) 2 SCC 840; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and (1996) Page 13 of 22 ITA No.-7042/Del/2014. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd. 3 SCC 132; Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 3 S…

Union of India v. Modi Rubber Ltd. (4 SCC 66) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax