Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.54 seconds)
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, Ajmer vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 August, 2020 cites

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-4, Jaipur vs Shri Kailash Chand Sharma, Jaipur on 3 June, 2020

Further, even in case of divergent view of the 4 MA No. 54/JP/2019 ITO vs. Shri Kailash Chand Bangur Hon'ble High Courts on a issue the Tribunal is bound by the view taken by the Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court. Hence, the decision which was not cited by the reviewed or relied upon by the Revenue at the time of hearing cannot be a ground for mistake in the order of the Tribunal when the Tribunal has followed the various other decisions of Hon'ble High Courts as well as decision of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court. It is settled proposition of law that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal U/s 254(2) of the Act is very limited and circumscribed and does not permit any review or revision of its own decision taken on merits. Therefore, we do not find any merit or substance in the Misc. Application of the Revenue, the same is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Sundaram Infotech Solutions ... vs Acit Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai on 25 September, 2018

3. The ld. DR has submitted that this Tribunal while passing the impugned order on the issue of validity of initiation of the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 as well as dismissal of the SLP filed by the 2 MA No. 54/JP/2019 ITO vs. Shri Kailash Chand Bangur Revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 but this Tribunal has not considered the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT 403 ITR 407 and the SLP filed by the assessee in the said case was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 259 Taxman 220. Thus, the ld. DR has submitted that there is a mistake in the impugned order as the Tribunal has not considering the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court and consequently the impugned order be recalled for fresh hearing.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004

3. The ld. DR has submitted that this Tribunal while passing the impugned order on the issue of validity of initiation of the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 as well as dismissal of the SLP filed by the 2 MA No. 54/JP/2019 ITO vs. Shri Kailash Chand Bangur Revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 but this Tribunal has not considered the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT 403 ITR 407 and the SLP filed by the assessee in the said case was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 259 Taxman 220. Thus, the ld. DR has submitted that there is a mistake in the impugned order as the Tribunal has not considering the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court and consequently the impugned order be recalled for fresh hearing.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1430 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer (Companies Circle) ... on 10 December, 1964

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The Revenue has raised a plea in the present Misc. Application that the Tribunal has decided the appeal of the assessee by following decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as other decisions on the point of validity of initiation of penalty proceedings however, there is a judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court which is in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, non considering of the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court amounts to a mistake apparent on record requires rectification. We do not agree with this contention and plea of the Revenue simply due the reason that while deciding this issue the Tribunal has taken a firm view which is supported by various judgments including the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in case of Seveta Construction Co. vs. ITO in ITDB A No. 534/2008. The judgment of jurisdiction High Court is binding on this Tribunal specifically Jaipur and Jodhpur Benches of the Tribunal. The decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court was not relied upon or cited by the Revenue at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 31 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1