UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MINISTRY OF LAW JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS SENIOR CENTRAL GOVT. ADVOCATE vs M/S. TATA TEA CO. LTD. . — C.A. No. 9178/2012

Case under Section XVI. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010224612007

Filing Date

04-Aug-2007

Registration No

C.A. No. 9178/2012

Diary Number

22461/2007

Order Date

20-Sep-2017

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2017 INSC 960

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 01-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XVI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MINISTRY OF LAW JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS SENIOR CENTRAL GOVT. ADVOCATE

    Adv. ANIL KATIYAR[P-1] B. V. BALARAM DAS (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S. TATA TEA CO. LTD. .

    Adv. MANIK KARANJAWALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Sep-2017

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 20-Sep-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  4. 07-Sep-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 07-Sep-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  6. 06-Sep-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  7. 05-Sep-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  8. 31-Aug-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  9. 30-Aug-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 30-Aug-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  11. 29-Aug-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  12. 24-Aug-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  13. 23-Aug-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  14. 22-Aug-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  15. 17-Aug-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  16. 16-Aug-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

  17. 20-Jul-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 20-Jul-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 14-Dec-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 28-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 25-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 22-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 07-Oct-2009
  24. 01-Apr-2009
  25. 20-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 05-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 29-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  28. 19-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  29. 19-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  30. 03-Oct-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  31. 03-Oct-2008
  32. 26-Sep-2008
  33. 27-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  34. 13-Aug-2008
  35. 08-Aug-2008
  36. 28-Jul-2008
  37. 21-Jul-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 24-Apr-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  39. 07-Apr-2008
  40. 11-Mar-2008
  41. 04-Mar-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  42. 04-Aug-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 9178/2012

  43. [ 2017 INSC 960 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Union of India v. M/S. Tata Tea Co. Ltd. C.A. No. 9178/2012 | Supreme Court of India The Supreme Court upheld Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declaring it constitutionally valid without any limitations. Parliament has full competence to impose additional tax on dividends distributed by companies, even those deriving income partly from agriculture. Once declared as dividend, income loses the character of its source and becomes income subject to Parliament's taxation power under Entry 82 (List I), not restricted by Entry 46 (State List) covering agricultural income. The Court rejected the Calcutta High Court's rider limiting additional tax to 40% of dividends. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case