Access over 20 million homework & study documents

UNIVERSITI KUALA LUMPUR ROYAL COLLEGE OF MEDICINE PERAK

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/32
MANU/SC/0163/2011
Equivalent Citation: [2011]162CompCas574(SC), (2011)239CTR(SC)113,
[2011]332ITR130(SC), JT2011(3)SC356, 2011(3)SCALE111, (2011)4SCC36,
[2011]197TAXMAN337(SC), 2011(2)UJ827(SC), (2010)39VST114(SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 7796 of 1997
Decided On: 01.03.2011
Appellants: GVK Inds. Ltd. and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: The Income Tax Officer and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges:
S. H. Kapadia, C.J., B. Sudershan Reddy, K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, S.S.
Nijjar and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., U.A. Rana, Mrinal
Majumdar and Devina Seghal, Advs. for Gagrat and Co.
For Respondents/Defendant: Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Rupesh Kumar, Arijit
Prasad, D.D. Kamat, Rohit Sharma, Mihir Chatterjee, Nishanth Patil, Naila
Jung, Anoopam Prasad, B.V. Balaram Das and Sushma Suri, Advs.
Subject: Constitution
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Acts/Rules/Orders:

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/32
Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 9(1); Government of India Act, 1935; Constitution
of India - Articles 1, 2, 14, 51, 245, 245(1), 246, 248, 249, 250, 253, 260 and
368
Cases Referred:
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and
Anr. (1989) (2) SCC 642; Ashbury v. Ellis (1893) A.C. 339; Emmanuel Mortensen
v. David Peters (1906) 8 F (J.) 93; Croft v. Dunphy (1933) A.C. 156; British
Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. v. The King (1946) A.C. 527;Governor General
in Council v. Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. (1944) 12 ITR 265; Wallace Brothers
and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay(1948) 16 ITR 240; A.H. Wadia
v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay (1949) 17 ITR 63; State v. Narayandas
Mangilal DayameMANU/MH/0023/1958 : AIR 1958 Bom 68; Rao Shiv Bahadur v.
State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 394; Clark v. Oceanic Contractors Inc.
(1983) A.C. 130; Shrikant Bhalchandra v. State of Gujarat (1994) 5 SCC
459; State of A.P. v. N.T.P.C. MANU/SC/0356/2002 : (2002) 5 SCC
203;Keshavanadna Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225; I.R. Coelho v.
State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0595/2007 : (2007) 2 SCC 1; Trustees Executors
and Agency Co. Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1933) 49 CLR 220; In
Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves AIR 1960 SC 845; Woods v. Cloyd
W. Miller Co. 333 U.S. 138
Prior History / High Court Status:
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.1997 of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 6866 of 1995(MANU/AP/0210/1997)
Citing Reference:
Discussed
3
Mentioned
15
Case Note:
Direct Taxation Income deemed to accrue or arise in India Vires of
Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenged for want of
legislative competence and being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 High Court upheld the applicability of Section
9(1)(vii)(b) on the facts and also its constitutional validity by mainly
relying on the ratio of the judgment in Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (ECIL) At the stage of
appeal against thereto, the matter referred to constitutional bench to
determine powers of Parliament to legislate in relation to extra-territorial
aspects or causes vis-à-vis implication of Article 245 (1) and (2) of the
Constitution of India

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/32

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 32 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Top of Form    MANU/SC/0163/2011 Equivalent Citation: [2011]162CompCas574(SC), (2011)239CTR(SC)113, [2011]332ITR130(SC), JT2011(3)SC356, 2011(3)SCALE111, (2011)4SCC36, [2011]197TAXMAN337(SC), 2011(2)UJ827(SC), (2010)39VST114(SC) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 7796 of 1997 Decided On: 01.03.2011 Appellants: GVK Inds. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Respondent: The Income Tax Officer and Anr. Hon'ble Judges:  S. H. Kapadia, C.J., B. Sudershan Reddy, K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, S.S. Nijjar and Swatanter Kumar, JJ. Counsels:  For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., U.A. Rana, Mrinal Majumdar and Devina Seghal, Advs. for Gagrat and Co. For Respondents/Defendant: Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Rupesh Kumar, Arijit Prasad, D.D. Kamat, Rohit Sharma, Mihir Chatterjee, Nishanth Patil, Naila Jung, Anoopam Prasad, B.V. Balaram Das and Sushma Suri, Advs. Subject: Constitution Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders:  Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 9(1); Government of India Act, 1935; Constitution of India - Articles 1, 2, 14, 51, 245, 245(1), 246, 248, 249, 250, 253, 260 and 368 Cases Referred:  Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (1989) (2) SCC 642; Ashbury v. Ellis (1893) A.C. 339; Emmanuel Mortensen v. David Peters (1906) 8 F (J.) 93; Croft v. Dunphy (1933) A.C. 156; British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. v. The King (1946) A.C. 527;Governor General in Council v. Raleigh Invest ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
I use Studypool every time I need help studying, and it never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4