Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 154 (2.07 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central vs L.G. Ramamurthi And Ors. on 26 October, 1976

The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ... on 29 March, 2019

38. Moreover, we are bound to follow the order of this Tribunal in the own case of the assessee in the earlier year as the facts are identical in the impugned issue before us. It is also important to note that the Ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. 38.1 We also place our reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.). The relevant extract has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. In the light of the ratio decidendi in the above-said judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the view adopted by the co-ordinate bench as discussed above shall be applied in the case on hand with full strength. The ld. DR and the ld. AR has not brought any decisions varying from similar or identical facts or circumstances.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 64 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Acit, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs M/S. Nabros Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad on 30 April, 2019

& 80/Ahd/2008 and 7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 11 11.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore we are bound to follow the same in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) wherein it was held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 71 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cc 3, Mumbai on 17 July, 2018

they were personally used by the directors', the vehicles were personally used by the company, because a limited company by its very nature cannot have any 'personal use'. The limited company is an inanimate person and there cannot be anything personal about such an entity. The view was supported by the provision of section 40(c) and section 40A(5) of the Act. Once the expenditure in question was in terms as provided in sections 309 and 198 of the Companies Act, there could not be any 'non-business' purpose insofar as the assessee-company was concerned. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, Hon'ble High Court followed the decision from Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs L.G. Ramamurthi (1977) 110 ITR 543 (Mad.). No contrary decisions or facts were brought to our notice by the Revenue. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision from Hon'ble High Court, these grounds of the assessee are allowed. Our aforesaid conclusion/order will also cover identical grounds for the Assessment Year 2007-08 (ITA No.5523/Mum/2011) and Assessment Year 2008-09 (ITA No.5524/Mum/2011) also. Thus, these grounds are allowed in the respective appeals.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 18 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.,, ... vs The Pr. Cit, Central Circle-2,, Baroda on 17 May, 2019

49.1 Moreover, we are bound to follow the order of this Tribunal in the own case of the assessee in the earlier year as the facts are identical in the impugned issue before us. It is also important to note that the ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the finding of the ld. CIT-A. 49.2 We also place our reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 20 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Napar Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs Dcit on 30 November, 2005

Much reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on the assessment for the subsequent year, that is to say, for the year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69. The Commissioner has pointed out certain differences between these two years. In our opinion, as the learned judge has rightly observed, the assessee has no right of revision in respect of a previous year on the basis of the finding for a subsequent year. The decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi , on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, certain gifts made by the members of an HUF were held to be sham by the Tribunal On reference to the High Court, no specific question challenging the correctness of this finding was raised. In the subsequent assessment year, a differently constituted Tribunal came to a different conclusion. On a reference to the High Court at the instance of the department, it was held that, in the absence of any fresh material, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to an entirely different and contrary conclusion on the same set of facts. In the instant case, the Commissioner has distinguished the finding of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1968-69 on facts. Apart from that, we are of the view that on the question of principle of law, one Tribunal is not bound by the decision of another Tribunal. It is now well settled that the decision of the ITO or a Tribunal in regard to a particular year does not operate as res judicata for the subsequent year. If the appellant had been aggrieved, it could have challenged the decision of the Tribunal on a reference to this Court. The appellant, in our opinion, cannot rely upon the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1968-69 for the assessment year 1967-68.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 93 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next