Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.59 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Panna Devi Saraogi on 2 March, 1970
"Referring to the observations of Godavari Devi (supra), that an all
India Tribunal acting anywhere should follow the decisions of any
other High Court on the point, it was submitted by the counsel of the
revenue that this observation itself would show that the High Court
was aware of the fact that different High Courts were not bound by
the decisions of each other and, as such, there may be contrary
decisions of different High Courts on the same point."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992
9. The issue of consideration was thus confined to the question
whether or not a High Court decision is binding on another High
Court or not. That admittedly was the core issue decided by Their
Lordships. As for the binding nature of non-jurisdictional High Court
decisions on the Tribunal, the observations made by Their Lordships
were no more than obiter dictum and in this very judgment, Their
Lordships have held that even in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgments, which are binding on all Courts, except Supreme Court
itself, but 'what is binding, of course, is the ratio of the decision and
not every expression found therein'. Their Lordships have also
referred to the oft quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. ( 198 ITR 297) wherein it
is held that 'it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word
or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the
context of question under consideration, and treat it to be complete
law declared by this Court." [Emphasis supplied].
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 vs M/S. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd on 23 June, 2010
6. That takes us to the question whether this decision stands overruled
by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's later judgment in the case
of Thana Electricity Co. Ltd. (supra), as submitted by the learned
Departmental Representative.
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commr.Of Income Tax vs M/S Alom Extructions Limited on 25 November, 2009
"12. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited the
employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was
deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar
position, however, as it obtains in the present case arises out of the
fact that the disallowance which was effected by the Assessing
Officer has not, the Court is informed, been challenged by the
assessee. As a matter of fact the question of law which is formulated
ITA.99/Bang/2017 & CO.75/Bang/2017 Page - 8
by the Revenue proceeds on the basis that the assessed income was
enhanced due to the disallowance of the employer's as well as the
employees' contribution towards Provident Fund /ESIC and the
only question which is canvassed on behalf of the Revenue is
whether on that basis the Tribunal was justified in directing the
Assessing Officer to grant the exemption under Section 10A. On this
position, in the present case it cannot be disputed that the net
consequence of the disallowance of the employer's and the
employee's contribution is that the business profits have to that
extent been enhanced. There was, as we have already noted, an add
back by the Assessing Officer to the income. All profits of the
4 (2009) 319 ITR 306 unit of the assessee have been derived from
manufacturing activity.
Google India Private Limited, ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 11 May, 2018
"5. As observed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the
case of Tej International (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (69 TTJ 650), 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