Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.51 seconds)
Sh. Kulbir Singh S/O Sh. Jagir ... vs Ito, Ward 2, Panchkula on 11 November, 2025 cites

Manjet Singh (Huf) Karta Manjeet Singh vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2014

Dr.Shamlal Narula Vs. CIT (SC) India 53 ITR 151 dt. 09/04/1964  T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty Vs. CIT (SC) 66 ITR 465 dt. 17/04/1967  State of Haryana Vs Kailashwati and Ors. (P&H) dt. 11/09/1979  Rama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989  K.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989  Bikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996  Sunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001  Shivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others, Vs The State of Maharashtra and others W.P.N. 5402 of2013 (High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad) dated 27 08.2013  Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India in High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and Haryana) dated 14.01.2014  SLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014  Puneet Singh v. CIT.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Hari Om Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. Through The ... on 10 January, 2018

41. Similarly, the learned DR submitted that the writ petition filed by Jai Bhagwan Singh pertained to deduction of tax at source under section 194LA of the Act and the applicability of exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. It was contended that the scope and ambit of the decisions in Hari Singh as well as in Jai Bhagwan Singh were confined to the interpretation of section 194LA and section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those 37 decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction of tax at source (TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only question before the Hon'ble Court was whether the disbursing authority was required to deduct tax at source under Section 194LA while releasing the award amount pertaining to agricultural land, which is otherwise excluded from the ambit of the said provision. He had drawn our attention to para 2&3 of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is to the following effect:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Brahamaparkash vs Haryana State Industrial And ... on 19 July, 2019

32. Lastly, on the basis of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahm Prakash (supra), the subsequent orders in the miscellaneous petitions filed therein, the withdrawal order in the case of Jai Bhagwan, the decision rendered in the case of Hari Singh, as well as the order of the Hon'ble High Court and the communication issued by the Learned Additional Solicitor General, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remained undisturbed. On the contrary, it has been reinforced and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on multiple occasions. Accordingly, it was contended that the impugned order passed by the lower authorities, being contrary to the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, deserves to be set aside and the additions made are liable to be deleted.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Haryana State Industrial Development ... vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 21 July, 2014

5. We notice that the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court has failed to take notice of the judgment passed by this Court in case Punjab Financial Corporation (supra) and therefore, a different view was taken by the Delhi High Court and the same could not be binding upon this Court as it is a settled law that earlier judgment passed by this Court would have a binding precedential value over and above any different view taken by any other High Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Puneet Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Karnal on 19 November, 2020

Dr.Shamlal Narula Vs. CIT (SC) India 53 ITR 151 dt. 09/04/1964  T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty Vs. CIT (SC) 66 ITR 465 dt. 17/04/1967  State of Haryana Vs Kailashwati and Ors. (P&H) dt. 11/09/1979  Rama Bai Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 496 dt. 08/11/1989  K.S. Krishna RAO Vs CIT (SC) 54 Trueman 339 dt. 08/11/1989  Bikram Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector 89 Trueman 119 dt. 12/09/1996  Sunder vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6271 of 1998 (SC) dt. 19/09/2001  Shivajirao S/o, DnyanobaGhanwat and others, Vs The State of Maharashtra and others W.P.N. 5402 of2013 (High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad) dated 27 08.2013  Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India in High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and Haryana) dated 14.01.2014  SLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014  Puneet Singh v. CIT.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1