citedby: 871138

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Agarpara Co. Ltd. on 18 February, 1985

In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.'s case, , the Supreme Court held that the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953, did not discharge the employer from his liability to pay the employees unclaimed wages even though the employer makes over the unclaimed wages to the fund constituted under the said Act.

Calcutta High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ranojirao Shinde & Anr on 21 March, 1968

That conclusion of ours receives support from the ratio of the decisions of this Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh() and in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Limited v. State of Bombay(2) wherein Venkatarama Aiyar, J. speaking for the Court, observed "Assuming that the correct position is what the respondents contend it is that the case falls within Art. 19(1)(f), the question that has still to be determined is whether the impugned Act could be supported under Art. 19(5). There was some discussion before us as to the scope of this provision, the point of the debate being whether the words 'imposing reasonable restriction' (1) [1952] S.C.R. 889. (2) [1958] S.C.R. 1122. (3) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887.

Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 101 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Davanagere Sugar Co. Ltd. vs Union Of Inida (Uoi) on 7 August, 1990

23. It is in the light of these observations of the Supreme Court in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. v. State of Bombay that, in the instant case, the parliament has to avoid the risk of invalidity of any of the provisions of the Act specifically provided in Section 6 for refund of the excess over the controlled price paid by the consumer and under Section 6 of the impugned Act, where any amount is credited to the Fund, a refund shall be made from the Fund to the buyer of levy sugar from whom any excess realisation was made by the producer or - dealer, provided that no buyer shall be entitled to claim a refund under Section 6(1) if he (a) being a wholesale dealer, had passed on the incidence of such excess over the controlled or fair price of levy sugar to the retail dealer by whom the price of such sugar was paid or (b) being a retail dealer, had passed on the incidence of such excess over the controlled or fair price of levy sugar to the consumer by whom the price of such sugar was paid.

Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S V Patil - Full Document

Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs South Eastern Coafields Limited, ... on 30 October, 2023

G. Case laws relied on • Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing v The State of Bombay [SC 1951r AIR 328: 1958 SCR 1122]- copy placed as Attachment C1 • CIT v Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt Ltd [(1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC)] (para 6 and 10) - copy placed as Attachment C2 • JK Chemical Ltd v CIT [(1966) 62 ITR 34 (Bom)] - copy placed as Attachment C3 • PC IT v New World Synthetics Ltd [(2018) 97 Taxmann.com 399 (Delhi)] - copy placed as Attachment C4 • CIT v Bhooratnam & Co [(2013) 357 ITR 396 (AP)]- copy placed as Attachment C5 • CIT v Relcom [(2015) 62 taxmann.com 190 (Delhi)]- copy placed as Attachment C6 • Escorts Ltd vs DC IT [(2007) 15 SOT 368]- copy placed as Attachment C7 • Supreme Renewable Energy Ltd [(2010) 3 ITR 339]- copy placed as Attachment C8 127 South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.