Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As The ... vs The Jcit (Osd) Rg 1(1), on 13 March, 2019
In the above facts, in
our considered opinion the decision of the Tribunal in the case of
Prism Cement Ltd. (supra) is more applicable which was rendered
by the Tribunal after duly considering the aforesaid decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram lyengar
& Sons Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal in the said case has held as
under:
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 41 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sanghvi Bros. Brokerage Ltd , vs Assessee on 19 November, 2010
17. After having gone through the contents contained in
the case titled M/s. Vatika Rayons Pvt. Ltd. (Supra)
wherein also the amounts were received from the same
parties which were forfeited and the other facts were also
same and in the absence of any contrary authority or
distinguishing factual matrix, we are bound to follow the
'doctrine of binding' precedents which demands that the
decision of Coordinate Bench is binding thus following the
consistent line of judicial precedent emanating from the
decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's sister
concern and also considering the fact that n othing has
been placed on record by Ld. DR in order to demonstrate
that the said decision has been stayed, modified or
reversed by Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, the binding
decision of the coordinate bench command full precedential
authority. Therefore, adhering to the principles of judicial
consistency and considering the fact of the present case.
We find no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the
lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, these
grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed .
1