230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

206 ITR 797High Court1994#23559 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. Sh. Darshan Kumar Mahajan, Pathankot

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…tional High Court is even otherwise not a binding precedent for the Tribunal, is well settled (refer: Suresh Desai & Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). There are, on the contrary, decisions galore, rendered during the long history of the provision, clarifying that, save as provided u/r. 6DD, the breach of the monetary limit for cash (or other than the prescribed modes of) payment would attract the rigor of s. 40A(3). In fact, s…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…binding on the AO (refer: Suresh Desai & Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. 7 ITA No.218 (Asr)/2017(AY 2012-13) Lally Motors India P. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). No such decision by either the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court has been brought to our notice. The moot question therefore is if the said Circular is in conformity with the law. Section 14A, immediately succeeds section 14 – the first section of Chapt…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Virgo Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.741/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: 16.05.2017

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…a non-jurisdictional High Court is not a binding precedent for the Tribunal, is well settled (refer: Suresh Desai & Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). The decision in Veekayal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra), in our view, with respect, lays down the correct proposition in law. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on July 31, 2017 at Chennai. (धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी) (स…