Lokmangal Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,, Solapur vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 30 November, 2018
It was also noted that there were various
other High Courts which were not in favour of view taken in CIT Vs. Smt.
Godavaridevi Saraf (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 422 (0.79 seconds)Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Devidayal Stainless Steel India P. Ltd. on 20 August, 1990
He argued that, in view of the conflicting views taken by different courts, our court's decision in the case of CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589, was not applicable.
Sant Sopankaka Sahakari Bank Ltd., ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 20 December, 2019
It was also
noted that there were various other High Courts which were not in
favour of view taken in CIT Vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (supra).
Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 May, 1996
We have carefully seen the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. (supra) and it is seen that the Hon'ble High Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf apart from certain other decisions, and observed at page 741 that : "On a careful reading of the observations in the light of the questions which were before the Court for determination in those cases, we find it difficult to accept these observations as the ratio decidendi of those decisions. These are observations by way of obiter dicta which, at best, may have persuasive efficacy but not the binding character of a precedent."
Sant Sopankaka Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(2), Pune on 20 August, 2019
It was also noted that there were
various other High Courts which were not in favour of view taken in CIT Vs.
Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (supra).
Income Tax Officer vs Ranisati Fabric Mills P. Ltd. on 7 August, 2007
In the case of CIT v. thane Electricity Supply 206 ITR 727 their Lordship of the jurisdictional High Court have not over ruled the view expressed by the earlier Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Godavaridevi Saraf 113 ITR 589 as the said judgment was not referred before their Lordships during the course of hearing of the Thane Electricity Supply.
Muthoot M. George Brothers vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 16 April, 1993
Such a view is supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (supra) and also the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Vrajlal Manilal & Co. (supra).
Jai Kumar Karnani vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 4 December, 1991
Therefore, the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Smt, Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 cannot operate and bind the Tribunal compelling it to ignore the provision of Section 34(1)(c). The minority Madras view in V. Devaki Ammal [1973] 91 ITR 24 is of no consequence.
Dcit Tds 1(1), Mumbai vs Bharat Business Channels Ltd, Mumbai on 20 March, 2018
Dcit, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata on 13 September, 2024
It should not be overlooked that the Income-tax Act is an All-India stature
and if an Income-tax Tribunal in Madras, in view of the decision of the
Madras High Court, has to proceed on the footing that section 140A(3) was
non-existent, the order of penalty there-under cannot be imposed by the
authority under the Act. Until a contrary decision is given by any other
competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of
Bombay, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High
Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. When the
Tribunal set aside the order of penalty it did not go into the question of intra
vires or ultra vires. It did not go into the question of constitutionality of
section 140A(3). That section was already declared ultra vires by a
competent High Court in the country and an authority like an Income-tax
Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down
by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary
decision of any other High Court on that question."