What is UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra authority for?

The law prior to the amendment of Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, adding a proviso, was ambiguous regarding the levy of surcharge on block assessments. Some officers believed no surcharge was leviable, while others were unsure of the applicable Finance Act for calculating the surcharge.

How many judgments cite UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra (4 SCC 362), spanning 2011 to 2023.

UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra (4 SCC 362)

K.L. SWAMY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003704-003704 - 2012Supreme Court13 Jan 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 113Section 132Section 140ASection 158BSection 234A

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3704 OF 2012 K.L. Swamy ...Appellant(s) Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. …Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3706 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3705 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3707 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3708 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3709 OF 2012 J U D G M E N T : 1 : Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.01.13 16:29:07 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, all these appeals are decided and dispos…

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/214/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…re. *** Reasons in support 39. The first and foremost poser is as to whether it was possible to make the block assessment with the addition of levy of surcharge, in the absence of proviso to Section 113? In Suresh N. Gupta [CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta, (2008) 4 SCC 362] itself, it was acknowledged and admitted that the position prior to the amendment of Section 113 of the Act whereby the proviso was added, whether surcharge was payable in respect of block assessment or not, was totally ambiguous and unclear. The Court pointed out that some assessing officers had taken the view that no surcharge is leviable. O…

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/215/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…re. *** Reasons in support 39. The first and foremost poser is as to whether it was possible to make the block assessment with the addition of levy of surcharge, in the absence of proviso to Section 113? In Suresh N. Gupta [CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta, (2008) 4 SCC 362] itself, it was acknowledged and admitted that the position prior to the amendment of Section 113 of the Act whereby the proviso was added, whether surcharge was payable in respect of block assessment or not, was totally ambiguous and unclear. The Court pointed out that some assessing officers had taken the view that no surcharge is leviable. O…

TECHNOLOGIES LTD) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/213/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…re. *** Reasons in support 39. The first and foremost poser is as to whether it was possible to make the block assessment with the addition of levy of surcharge, in the absence of proviso to Section 113? In Suresh N. Gupta [CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta, (2008) 4 SCC 362] itself, it was acknowledged and admitted that the position prior to the amendment of Section 113 of the Act whereby the proviso was added, whether surcharge was payable in respect of block assessment or not, was totally ambiguous and unclear. The Court pointed out that some assessing officers had taken the view that no surcharge is leviable. O…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

C.A. No.-002165-002165 - 2012Supreme Court31 Jan 2018

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

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER … RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.1429 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 36560 of 2012, C.A. No. 117 of 2015, C.A. No. 5101 of 2012, C.A. No. 118 of 2015, C.A. No. 6727 of 2015, C.A. No. 119 of 2015, C.A. No. 116 of 2015, C.A. No. 194 of 2015, C.A. No. 114 of 2015, C.A. No. 120 of 2015, C.A. No. 7395 of 2012, C.A. No. 7394 of 2012, C.A. No. 121 of 2015,…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co.,

ITTA/137/2017HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow Thru. AssttFor Respondent: - Gaurav Sharma And Anr

Section 163Section 166Section 173

…erefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Hyderabad vs. Smt.G.Venkata Lakshmi

ITTA/649/2017HC Telangana08 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

For Appellant: - Smt. Vimla SharmaFor Respondent: - Krishna Kumar And Another

…General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors.,(1994) 2 SCC 176 wherein addition of future prospects was also calculated. The decision in Susamma Thomas (Supra) was referred in U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.(1996) 4 SCC 362 which have been considered by the Apex Court in Sarla Dixit Versus Balwant Yadav AIR 1996 SC 1274 and the Apex Court has considered decision in Hardeo Kaur V/s. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, 1992 2 SCC 567. The [3] decision in Sarla Dixit has been considered to be good law in (1) Puttamma Vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy, AIR 2014 SC 706 (2) Ra…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NETSITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.

ITA/652/2016HC Delhi04 Sept 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ce company that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362 continues to prevail as the binding precedent. This Court, after examining the issue in light of the decisions in aforementioned cases and in the cases of Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and noting the dicta in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 67; Safiya Bee v. Mohd.…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. VISHU IMPEX PVT LTD.

ITA/431/2016HC Delhi09 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…ance in this context is placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362. It, therefore, seeks recalculation with multiplier adopted on basis of age of claimants. 8. On the other hand, reliance is placed on Munna Lal Jain and Anr. vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors., JT 2015 (5) SC1 by the claimants to argue that the approach of the tribunal was correct. 9. In Susamma Thomas (supra), a decision rendered by a ben…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

ITA/881/2015HC Delhi18 Nov 2015

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

…formula contained in Section 163A, enforced through the prescription in second schedule has been found to be full of errors or defects and, consequently, adversely commented upon in a number of cases by the Supreme Court [UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala (2001) 5 SCC 175; Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121; Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy (2013) 15 SCC 45]. The said special provision was inserted in 1994 with the cap of ₹40,000/- on the income to be considered for calculating the loss of dependency (or income) in fatal accident cases.…

CENTRAL – II vs. PVT. LTD

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA/365/2013HC Delhi15 Oct 2015

Section 173

…NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001003 MAC.APP. 365/2013 Page 1 of 17 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 27.01.2023 Pronounced on: 13.02.2023 + MAC.APP. 365/2013 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate. versus ALI SHER KHAN AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Javed Ahmad, Ms.Aakriti Aditya, Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIDEO ELECTRONICS

ITA/175/2014HC Delhi03 Aug 2015

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

…formula contained in Section 163A, enforced through the prescription in second schedule has been found to be full of errors or defects and, consequently, adversely commented upon in a number of cases by the Supreme Court [UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala (2001) 5 SCC 175; Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121; Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy (2013) 15 SCC 45]. The said special provision was inserted in 1994 with the cap of ₹40,000/- on the income to be considered for calculating the loss of dependency (or income) in fatal accident cases.…

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014

Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

…force with effect from 01.06.2002. It reads as under: “Provided that the tax chargeable under this section shall be increased by a surcharge, if any, levied by any Central Act and applicable in the assessment year relevant to the previous 1 (2008) 4 SCC 362 Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 8 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 9 JUDGMENT year in which the search is initiated under Section 132 or the requisition is made under Section 132-A. In this case, the search and seizure took place on 06.10.2001. An order of block assessment in t…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sree Nidhi Secure Prints Private Limited

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITTA/365/2013HC Telangana27 Aug 2013

Section 173

…NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/001003 MAC.APP. 365/2013 Page 1 of 17 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 27.01.2023 Pronounced on: 13.02.2023 + MAC.APP. 365/2013 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate. versus ALI SHER KHAN AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Javed Ahmad, Ms.Aakriti Aditya, Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/250/2013HC Telangana11 Jul 2013

…formula contained in Section 163A, enforced through the prescription in second schedule has been found to be full of errors or defects and, consequently, adversely commented upon in a number of cases by the Supreme Court [UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala (2001) 5 SCC 175; Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121; Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy (2013) 15 SCC 45]. The said special provision was inserted in 1994 with the cap of ₹40,000/- on the income to be considered for calculating the loss of dependency (or income) in fatal accident cases.…