Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs B.R. Constructions on 19 June, 1992

8. So far as the assessee's reliance on learned coordinate bench foregoing decision (supra) is concerned, we hold the same to be per inquirium only since not adopting stricter interpretation in above terms. Case law CIT vs. B.R. Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 333 (AP) holds that a judicial decision ceases to be a binding precedent in such a factual backdrop. We accordingly uphold the CIT(A)'s action rejecting the assessee's lower appeal against sec.139(9) order as not maintainable u/sec.246A of the Act. Rejected accordingly.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 42 - Cited by 77 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Keimed Limited, Hyderabad, Hyderabad vs Acit, Central Circle-3(1),, Chennai on 17 March, 2021

4. Mr. Pathak vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in declining the assessee's lower appeal as not maintainable. His case before us is that not only sec.246A(1)(a)'s clinching statutory expression "against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act" squarely applies herein but also case law [2022] 138 taxmann.com 46 (Pune-Trib.) Deere & Company vs. DCIT has rejected the Revenue's very stand as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1