Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Sant Lal Sahu vs Shailbala Martin 5 Cont/227/2018 Dr. ... on 23 March, 2018

Shri Sant Sadhu Singh, Hoshiarpur vs Income Tax Officer,Ward-4, Hoshiarpur on 29 July, 2019

3. It would be relevant to state the background facts of the case. The assessee filed his return for the relevant year on 31.3.2010, declaring an income of 2 ITA No. 763/Asr/2017 (AY 2009-10) Sant Sadhu Singh v. ITO Rs.21,72,090, i.e., besides agricultural income at Rs.9.50 lacs. The return was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Enquiries with the assessee u/s. 133(6) in respect of cash deposits (at an aggregate of Rs.25,79,929) during the relevant year in his savings bank account with State Bank of Patiala (SBP), Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, eliciting no response, proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated by the issue of notice u/s. 148 on 03.02.2016 upon observing the procedural requirements. The assessee filed a return on 06.10.2016 enhancing the agricultural income to Rs.19.50 lacs, i.e., up from Rs.9.50 lacs, while retaining the other income, being by way of bank interest, etc. at Rs.21.72 lacs. The returning of the agricultural income at Rs.9.50 lacs vide the original return was claimed to be by way of a mistake. In support, the assessee filed Khasra Girdavaris of the agricultural lands (at various places) for a total of 56 acres and odd, claiming Rs.36,000/- to be the going annual rent per acre. Even as the lands were self-cultivated, the said rent, it was submitted, would give a fair idea of the agricultural income that would stand to be generated. The assessee has, in addition, sold Eucalyptus trees during the relevant year. The same was not accepted in the absence of any proof as to the sale of crops, which, as per the Khasra Girdavaris, were for wheat, maize, and sugarcane. The sale of Eucalyptus trees was also sans any material. The assessee's agricultural income for the two immediately preceding, and the two immediately succeeding, years, was at Rs.9.50 lacs each. Regarding the assessee's agricultural income for the year at the originally returned sum of Rs.9.50 lacs, an addition for Rs.10 lacs toward unexplained cash deposit/s in his bank account was made by deeming it as unexplained income, assessing thus the total income at Rs.31,72,090, i.e., besides agricultural income at Rs.9.50 lacs. The same being confirmed, and on the same basis, the assessee is in second appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Super Floorings Private Limited vs Napin Impex Limited on 3 January, 2025

In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad [Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, 1951 SCC 1008 : AIR 1951 SC 477] , this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras 9 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1928 of 2024 & I.A. No.7115 of 2024 9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Super Floorings Private Limited vs Napin Impex Limited on 3 January, 2025

In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad [Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, 1951 SCC 1008 : AIR 1951 SC 477] , this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras 9 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1928 of 2024 & I.A. No.7115 of 2024 9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Mkm Diamonds Private Limited vs State Bank Of India Through The ... on 18 August, 2025

In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad [Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, 1951 SCC 1008 : AIR 1951 SC 477] , this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras 9 and 10, the following has been laid down : (AIR p.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

M/S Protech Impex Pvt Ltd & Anr vs M/S Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam ... on 25 August, 2025

In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad [Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, 1951 SCC 1008 : AIR 1951 SC 477] , this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof. In paras 9 and 10, the following has been laid down :
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Gopal vs M/S Axis Innovations Pvt Ltd on 29 October, 2025

In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad [Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, 1951 SCC 1008 : AIR 1951 SC 477] , this Court held that for applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, two conditions were essential that the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. This Court further held that for claiming benefit of exemption under Section 20, there has to be pleading and proof.
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Priya Ahuja @ Sunita vs Jamil @ Jameer on 6 December, 2018

39. It was claimed by respondent No.3/The New India Assurance Company Ltd. that the insurance company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle (tractor­trolley) was not holding an effective   and   valid   driving   licence   to   drive   the   offending   vehicle   which   was commercial   in   nature.   To   substantiate   its   claim,   insurance   company   had examined R3W1/N.K. Saxena, Assistant/The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. who testified   that   as   per   the   report,   DL   was   issued   to   respondent   No.1   for   non­ commercial   vehicles,   whereas,   respondent   No.1   was   driving   a   commercial vehicle. No witness was, however, examined by the insurance company to prove 10 that respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was driving a commercial vehicle.   In   his   cross­examination,   respondent   No.1,   driver   of   the   offending vehicle categorically stated that at the time of accident, he was carrying paddy crops from the fields. Even CW1/Deepak Sachdeva had also testified that the tractor­cum­trolley/offending   vehicle   was   coming   from   the   agriculture   fields when   it   had   struck   against   the   TSR.   Otherwise   also,   respondent   No.1   was holding   a   valid   and   effective   driving   licence   to   drive   tractor,   car/jeep, scooter/motorcycle which are Light Motor Vehicles. In Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and Anr., 2018 ACJ 976 (SC) , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of Light Motor Vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy."
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr V P Yacob Son Of Mr vs Paily V/S M/S Xindia Steels Limited on 16 March, 2026

7. At outset, there can be no opinions about jurisdiction as well as obligation cast on Trial Court on filing of an application -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4194 CRP No. 100102 of 2025 HC-KAR under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As per decisions in Dahiben, Sant Lal Mahton, Raghwendra, Mukund Bhavan Trust and Metropoli (supra), Court would require to ascertain on a meaningful and complete of plaint, even if defence of suit being barred by period of limitation were taken or not, to examine same. And in case, suit was found to be ex-facie time-barred, dismiss suit by nipping it in bud. It is also seen that on said sole ground, IA no.II was filed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document
1