Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Sarvodaya Printing Press vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 March, 1994
So far as the decision in the case of Wadilal Dairy International (supra) case is concerned, the same looses its importance in view of the Bombay High Court's full Bench decision in the case of Sarvodaya Printing Press (supra).
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Anandam Viswanathan on 24 January, 1989
12. So far as the difference between a sale and works contract is concerned, there are several decisions, which are too numerable to be noticed. The last word on the subject has been uttered in the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan (1989) 73 STC 1 (SC). It was a case of printing and supply of question papers of the University. The Supreme Court held that though sale of paper and ink was involved, it was merely incidental. It was not a case of sale but of a works contract having regard to the work to be done and the confidence reposed for the work to be done for remuneration. Following observations are appropriate :
Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989
The doctrine of binding precedent has the merits of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of clear and consistent enunciation of legal principles in the decisions of a Court [Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 178 ITR 548 (SC)].
Wadilal Dairy International Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. ... on 13 November, 2000
So far as the decision in the case of Wadilal Dairy International (supra) case is concerned, the same looses its importance in view of the Bombay High Court's full Bench decision in the case of Sarvodaya Printing Press (supra).
Siemens India Ltd. And Another vs K. Subramanian, Ito, Companies ... on 30 March, 1982
Not to follow the decision of the High Court within that jurisdiction the AO is, would tantamount to committing contempt of that Court [Siemens India Ltd. v. K. Subramanian ITO (1983) 143 ITR 120 (Bom)].
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs M/S Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr on 28 January, 2002
In order to give a word of caution, while applying the precedent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills AIR 2002 SC 834 has opined in para 19 as under :
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962
The launching of proceeding contrary to the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid and proceedings themselves would be without jurisdiction [East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893].
Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar, ... on 23 March, 1993
7. Smt. Anupama Shukla, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that as per assessee-company's prescribed specification contained in the order, the printed packing material is supplied to the assessee. The other condition in such an order are incidental to execution but the transaction for supply of printed sacks which too included the detailed directions for printing of sacks. This is works contract and accordingly, the provisions of Section 194C of the Act in the light of the circular No. 715 dt. 8th Aug, 1995, was clearly applicable. The AO was, therefore, justified in creating both the demands. Reliance was also placed on relevant clauses of the agreement such as 'printing' and on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case 29 STC 477. Further reliance was placed on circular No. 681 dt. 8th March, 1994, in which the Supreme Court decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 435 (SC) was also considered and besides that Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court's in the case of Sarvodaya Printing Press v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 93 STC 387 (Bom) supports the view of the AO which is a binding precedent. Therefore, there was no occasion for the learned CIT(A) to delete the demands created.