Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.45 seconds)Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973
In
support of that contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a few
decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Madho Prasad Jatia (1976) 105 ITR 179
(SC); CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and CIT vs.
Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) : .........The above
principle of law is well-established and there is no doubt about that......."
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Jaipur vs M/S Idea Cellular Limited on 5 October, 2018
Besides the purpose of retaining a mobile phone connection with a service
provider, the subscriber has no use or value for the Sim Card purchased by
him from assessee's distributor. The position is same so far as Recharge
coupons or E Topups are concerned which are only air time charges collected
from the subscribers in advance. We have to necessarily hold that our
findings based on the observations of the Supreme Court in BSNL's case
(supra) in the context of sales tax in the case of BPL Cellular Ltd. (supra)
squarely apply to the assessee which is nothing but the successor company
which has taken over the business of BPL Cellular Ltd. in Kerala. So much
so, there is no sale of any goods involved as claimed by the assessee and
the entire charges collected by the assessee at the time of delivery of Sim
Cards or Recharge coupons is only for rendering services to ultimate
subscribers and the distributor is only the middleman arranging customers or
subscribers for the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vidarbha vs Godavaridevi Saraf on 27 September, 1977
........ At the time when the Tribunal decided the appeal, that was the only
decision in the field and, therefore, in view of what the Bombay High Court
has held in CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) and
CIT vs. Smt. Nirmalabai K. Darekar (1990) 186 ITR 242 (Bom), the Tribunal
was bound to follow the said judgment of the Madras High Cour. It, therefore,
cannot be said that the Tribunal committed an error in following the said
judgment of the Madras High Court.
Cit vs The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal on 4 April, 2016
15. It is clear that, except on the issue of legality of the statutory provision itself, the
decisions of even the non-jurisdictional High Courts are binding on the lower tiers of
judicial hierarchy such as this Tribunal. As we hold so, we are alive to the school of
thought that non jurisdictional High Courts are not binding on the subordinate courts
and Tribunals, as articulated by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of
CIT vs. Ved Prakash [(1989) 178 ITR 332 (P&H)] but then that was a case in the
context of validity of a statutory provision, i.e. 140A(3), covered by the rider to the
general proposition. This exception does not come into play in the present case as
we are not, and we cannot be, dealing with the constitutional validity of a provision.
Clearly, therefore, the views expressed by Hon'ble non jurisdictional High Court, in
the absence of a direct decision on that issue by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High
Court, deserve utmost respect and deference.
A.M. Sali Maricar And Anr. vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr. on 6 December, 1972
"It should not be overlooked that IT Act is an all India statute, and if a Tribunal
in Madras has to proceed on the footing that s. 140A(3) was non-existent, the
order of penalty under that section cannot be imposed by any authority under
the Act. Until a contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court,
which is binding on the Tribunal in the State of Bombay (as it then was), it has
to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of
another State, is the final law of the land..............an authority like Tribunal
has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different
State, so long as there is no contrary decision on that issue by any other High
Court........."
Kashiram vs Income-Tax Officer, E-Ward on 10 December, 1975
From the report, it appears that the said judgment was delivered on 10th Dec., 1975.
Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in proceeding on the basis that only the Madras
High Court judgment was in the field and, therefore, it was open to it to proceed on
the basis that s. 140A(3) was non-existent.
Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... vs M/S Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar on 11 March, 2016
Learned CIT-DR vehemently argues at this stage that hon'ble Allahabad high
court in CIT vs. Kesarwan Zarda Bhandar in Tax Appeal ITA No. 270 of 2014,
Anil Kumar Bhatia vs. CIT 24 Taxmann.com 98, CIT vs. ST FRANC CLAY D
ECOR TILES (2016) 70 taxmann.com 234 (Ker) holds that a section
153A/Sec. 153C assessment is meant to assess the entire income than that
based only on alleged incriminating evidence found or seized during the
course of search. There is hardly any issue that hon'ble jurisdictional high
court has not adjudicated the instant legal issue till date.