Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Manjet Singh (Huf) Karta Manjeet Singh vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2014
Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in Shivajirao (supra) and the judgment of
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manjeet Singh (supra)
along with the statutory amendment carried out to section 56(2)
inserting clause (viii) w.e.f. 01-04-2010, it is overt that the ld.
CIT(A) has taken an unexceptionable view in the matter pertaining
to the A.Y. 2013-14. We, therefore, uphold the same. This ground
is not allowed.
Section 34 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, ... vs Ghanshyam J. Sukhwani (Huf),, Pune on 4 April, 2019
7. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Curt
has not correctly appreciated the legal position inasmuch as the
decision in the case of Ghanshyam (supra) was binding and ought
to have been followed. He unsuccessfully tried to convince the
Tribunal that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court should not be preferred over certain other decisions in favour
of the assessee. We find that in certain decisions, the issue has
been decided in assessee's favour. Notwithstanding any contrary
view expressed by a non-jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court, the
8
ITA No.1012/PUN/2017
Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bidwe
Tribunal, being an authority inferior in hierarchy to its
jurisdictional High Court, is bound by the verdict of its superior
Hon'ble High Court and cannot read, consider or understand the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a way different from
the one understood by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court unless
such a view has been subsequently reversed/modified by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.