Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 139 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Anoop Kumar [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 28 December, 2004
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vidarbha vs Godavaridevi Saraf on 27 September, 1977
The Bench has further held that the fact that the
judgment of the higher judicial forum is from a non-
jurisdictional High ITA No 1168 and CO 76/PN/11 Anand
Buildcon A.Y. 2007-08 Court does not really alter this position
as laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of
CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf (113 ITR 589 (Bom).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd. on 21 March, 2001
Tej International (P) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 September, 2000
"18. The question now is as to whether to follow the decision of
the Hon'ble Special Bench which has taken the view that
Amendment by the Finance Act 2010to the provisions of sec.
40(a)(ia) of the Act are prospective and not retrospective from
1-4-2005 or the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court
taking a contrary view. On the above question, the learned
counsel for the assessee brought to our notice the decision of
the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Tej International (P) Ltd. Vs.
Dy. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Del) 650, wherein it was held that in the
hierarchical judicial system that we have in India, the wisdom
of the court below has to yield to the higher wisdom of the
Court above, and therefore, once an authority higher than this
Tribunal has expressed its esteemed views on an issue,
normally, the decision of the higher judicial authority is to be
followed.
1