citedby: 158190839

Page No.# 1/17 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 30 January, 2026

As such, there was no infirmity with the review petition filed by the Union of India against the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, which had been based on the earlier judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315, which was reviewed. Accordingly there being no infirmity with the impugned order allowing the review petition, vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, the present appeal should be dismissed.

Gauhati High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M Zothankhuma - Full Document

Unknown vs M/S. Advance Infra Developers Pvt Ltd on 17 November, 2023

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/21 CMA No. 1380 of 2023 etc. batch Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs M/S. Advance Infra Developers Pvt Ltd on 17 November, 2023

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Suhas Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd on 12 February, 2024

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Marg Ltd on 8 January, 2024

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Marg Ltd on 3 April, 2024

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Marg Limited on 21 December, 2023

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Navrang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd on 11 December, 2023

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Star City Homes Pvt. Ltd on 20 November, 2023

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Unknown vs M/S. Anjani Constructions Pvt. Ltd on 23 February, 2024

In such circumstances, pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.

Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results