Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Income Tax Act

12 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

KETAN V. PAREKHversusSPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER.

2011 INSC 82529 November 2011Dismissed

The Special Director of Enforcement imposed a penalty on Ketan V. Parekh and others under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The appellants filed appeals under Section 35 of the Act and sought condonation of a 1,056‑day delay, arguing that the time spent pursuing writ petitions in the Delhi High Court should be

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHERversusTHE L.R.C.G. AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 81829 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Gujarat High Court, in a public‑interest litigation, directed the State to compensate trusts and institutions for religious places damaged in the 2002 communal riots and appointed special officers to assess claims. The State responded by framing an ex‑gratia scheme limiting assistance to Rs 50,000 per place, subjec

C. VENKATACHALAMversusAJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND OTHERS

2011 INSC 61829 August 2011Dismissed

Two consumer complaints were filed before the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum, and the opposite parties objected to the appearance of an authorized agent who was not an advocate. The High Court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 permits parties to be represented by authorized agents and that this does not

ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICERversusM/S MAKKAD PLASTIC AGENCIES

2011 INSC 23529 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan Sales Tax Assessing Officer had assessed M/s Makkad Plastic Agencies at a 10% rate, which was later set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and then restored by the Rajasthan Taxation Board. The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, prompt

COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICERversusM/S. BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE

2020 INSC 36827 April 2020Dismissed

The Commercial Taxes Officer challenged the exemption claimed by M/s Bombay Machinery Store under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, arguing that the State’s circulars imposed a 30‑day time‑limit after which goods retained by a carrier were deemed to be constructively delivered, converting the inter‑state

RAJ KUMARversusDIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS.

2016 INSC 31813 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a permanent driver at DAV Public School, was declared surplus and retrenched by the school’s Managing Committee in 2003. The school served a notice under Section 25F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act but failed to send the statutory notice to the appropriate government authority under Section 25F(c) and

PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusPOST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 1567 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) in joint names and, relying on an agent named Rukhsana, handed the certificates to her for transfer. Rukhsana encashed the KVPs at a different post office and received Rs. 25,54,000 in cash, which she kept. The appellants filed a consumer complaint; the NCDRC dismissed

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ORS.versusMIS AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD.

2017 INSC 9984 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the Delhi Tax Compliance Achievement Scheme (Amnesty Scheme) under Section 107 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The Additional Commissioner, acting as the "Designated Authority", issued a show‑cause notice under clause 8 of the Scheme alleging false declaration by MIS Ahluwalia Contracts. The

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusM/S. SHREYANS INDUS LTD. ETC.

2016 INSC 2434 March 2016Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court’s decision that the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation could not extend the three‑year limitation period for passing a sales‑tax assessment after that period had expired. The assessee, M/s Shreyans Indus Ltd., had filed returns for assessment years 2000‑01 to 2003‑04

DR. VINOD BHANDARIversusSTATE OF M.P.

2015 INSC 954 February 2015

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Managing Director of a medical institute, was alleged to have conspired with Vyapam officials and middlemen to secure illegal admissions for undeserving candidates into MBBS courses, involving large sums of money and fraud. He was arrested in January 2014 and his bail applications were rejected by t

M/S KOTHARI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD.versusTAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

2010 INSC 6661 October 2010Matter referred to larger bench

The appellants, Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. and others, set up new industrial units attracted by a five‑year tariff concession under the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978. A later notification (30‑April‑1982) altered the concession, stipulating it would not apply once

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search