Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.52 seconds)Distt. Manager, Apsrtc, Vijayawada vs K. Sivaji & Ors on 30 November, 2000
This was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in District Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada v. K. Sivaji and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 135 by observing that judicial discipline required that the Judge either followed the earlier decision or referred the matter to a larger Bench and that sitting singly the learned Judge could not have taken a different view on the specious ground that the decision was based on facts.
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001
Again in Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagadish (2001) 2 SCC 247 yet another 3 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court considered this question. It was observed as follows :
Sri Gopabandhu Biswal vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors on 21 April, 1998
Similar views have been expressed by the Supreme Court in Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandramohanty and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 447 para 16 at p. 455, Usha Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 44 para 3 and State of A.P. v. V.C. Subbarayudu (1998) 2 SCC 516 para 10. It is unnecessary to multiply with other decisions.
Usha Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 23 July, 1997
Similar views have been expressed by the Supreme Court in Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandramohanty and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 447 para 16 at p. 455, Usha Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 44 para 3 and State of A.P. v. V.C. Subbarayudu (1998) 2 SCC 516 para 10. It is unnecessary to multiply with other decisions.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Subbarayudu, V.C. & Ors on 22 January, 1998
Similar views have been expressed by the Supreme Court in Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandramohanty and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 447 para 16 at p. 455, Usha Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 44 para 3 and State of A.P. v. V.C. Subbarayudu (1998) 2 SCC 516 para 10. It is unnecessary to multiply with other decisions.
Travancore Titanium Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala on 17 January, 1966
13. According to us, before applying the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned in the aforesaid cases the Tribunal ought to have ascertained the factual circumstances under which the Government had imposed the levy of service charges in the case of only a few Government-owned companies which are the parties involved in these batch of cases. It is not properly discernible from the letter received from the Government as to the circumstances under which the Government had chosen to levy this service charges on these companies alone. As could be seen from the assessment orders the service charges so collected are very substantial amounts.
Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 January, 2003
19. As we have already noted earlier, none of these Benches had made an earnest effort nor the parties assisted the Tribunal in finding out the actual basis on which the Government had demanded the service charges from the Government companies. The fact that there is a Government order demanding the service charges and these companies had paid the service charges so demanded is not in dispute. The dispute is only as to whether these amounts were eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Act. The correct principles governing the deduction under Section 37 of the Act have been noted by the Tribunal in ITA 894/C/1994. A- Full Bench of this Court also had occasion to consider the parameters regarding the grant of deduction under Section 37 of the Act in Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd v. CIT (IT Ref. 16/1999 judgment dt. 31st Jan., 2003) (2003 (1) KLT 687]. We notice that different Benches of the Tribunal have taken different views. In these circumstances, we are of the view that a detailed consideration of the basic facts leading to the demand of service charges by the Government from these companies have to be ascertained for a satisfactory adjudication of the eligibility for deduction of the same under Section 37 of the Act. Since neither the AO nor the two appellate authorities had seen the Government orders particularly the earliest Government order dt. 25th March, 1988, referred to in the letter extracted in the Tribunal's order in ITA 894/C/1994, we are of the view that the AO must be directed to consider the matter afresh with reference to these Government orders and the circumstances under which those Government orders happened to be issued.
S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999
"At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two co-ordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every presiding officer of a judicial forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and against that precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate Court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior Courts. A co-ordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement".
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1