Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.40 seconds)
M/S. Shirlal Milk Producers ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur on 12 May, 2022 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989

The benefit of this doctrine is to provide certainty, stability, predictability and uniformity. It increases the probability of judges arriving a correct decision, on the assumption that collective wisdom ITA No.37/Bang/2022 M/s. Shirlal Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Dakshina Kannada Page 6 of 9 is always better than that of an individual. It also preserve the institutional legitimacy and "adjudicative integrity". It is flexible in nature, as there are ways to avoid precedents. It provides equality in treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness and avoids inconsistent / divergent decisions. It prevents uncertainty and ambiguity in law [Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754; and Justice R V Raveendran : "Precedents - Boon or Bane", (2015) 8 SCC 1 (J)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 724 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Baradakanta Mishra,Ex-Commissioner ... vs Bhimsen Dixit on 29 September, 1972

4.7. The Apex Court reiterated the aforestated position once again in Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit AIR 1972 SC 2466 where it stated that it would be anomalous to suggest that a Tribunal over which a High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by it and if a Tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can ITA No.37/Bang/2022 M/s. Shirlal Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Dakshina Kannada Page 7 of 9 equally do so, for there is no specific provision as in respect of Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Court binding on subordinate Courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 162 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. on 24 September, 1991

4.10. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd. AIR 1992 SC 711; deliberately emphasized on the following "It cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders ITA No.37/Bang/2022 M/s. Shirlal Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Dakshina Kannada Page 8 of 9 of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable' to the Department--in itself an objectionable phrase--and is the subject-matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 397 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Voest-Alpine Ind. Gmbh vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 21 August, 2000

4.11. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Voest Alpine Ind. GmbH v. ITO &Ors. (246 ITR 745, 749 Cal.) held that it is well settled principle of law that the junior incumbent is supposed to obey and carry out the order and / or observations 'made by the superior authority, be it judicial forum or a quasi-judicial forum or even in any administration field.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - K J Sengupta - Full Document
1   2 Next