Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SATYA NAND MUNJAL versus COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Decided
22 January 2013
Judges listed
D.K. JAIN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 502 · 2013 INSC 50

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N; that is paragraph N of the first opinion that numbers its paragraphs, and another opinion's paragraph N is #op2-para-N, #op3-para-N and so on, by its opinion number.

MADAN 8.

p. 502, margin G

Opinion 2

1

Civil Appeal No. 3917/2010 (Assessee: Mr. Satya Nand Munjal), Civil Appeal No. 3916/ 2010 (Assessee: Mr. Brij Mohan Lal Munjal) and Civil Appeal No. 3918/2010 (Assessee: Om Prakash Munjal) arise out of G.T.A. No. 112001, G.T.A. No. 4/2001 and G.T.A. No. 5/2001 respectively, all decided by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 17th December, 2008. The relevant Assessment Year is 1989-90.

pp. 502–503, margin G

2

The common substantial questions of law referred for consideration by the High Court, at the instance of the Revenue, in all the appeals reads as follows :- "1. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the IT AT was right in law in holding that no interest under section 168 was chargeable in this case? 2.Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 168(3) were applicable to this case."

p. 503, margin A

3

The High Court allowed the appeals on the basis of the common judgment and order rendered in G.T.A. No. 2/2001 and G.T.A. No. 3/2001 holding, inter alia, that since gift tax was leviable on the revocable transfer of equity shares by the assessee to Mis Yogesh Chandra & Brothers Associates, interest was liable to be paid by the assessee on the gift tax levied. ·

p. 503, margin C

4

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the assessees have preferred these appeals.

p. 503, margin E

5

We have today set aside the order of the High Court passed in G.T.A. No. 3/2001 and G.T.A. No. 2/2001 and have remanded the matters back to the High Court for de nova consideration.

p. 503, margin F

6

In view thereof, the judgment and order in appeal in these cases is also set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on the merits of the case. The appeals are allowed but there will be no order as to costs. K.K.T. Appeals allowed.

p. 503, margin G