A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak

4 SCC 589Reported decision2011#9206 most cited

What is A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak authority for?

A decision rendered per incuriam, meaning through lack of care or in ignorance of binding precedent, does not need to be followed.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak · per incuriam · binding precedent · not to be followed · illegality · void decision

Judgments citing A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving

ITA/8/2024HC Rajasthan13 Aug 2024

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MADAN GOPAL VYAS

For Appellant: Mr. S. Rajeswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 69Section 69A

…ount as genuine and worked up its theory on the basis of the entries which obtained in these books of account. It was not, therefore, open to the Tribunal to accept the genuineness of these books of account and accept the explanation of the 6 (1954) 2 SCC 602 7 (1959) 37 ITR 288 Page 16 of 17 (Tax Case No.8/2024) appellant in part as to Rs. 1,50,000 and reject the same in regard to the sum of Rs. 1,41,000. (ii) that the circumstances relied on by the Income-tax Officer were matters of pure conjecture, suspicion and surmises: the notoriety for smuggling foodgrains was merely a background of suspicion a…

Deputy Inspector General vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (TDS)

ITA/7/2020HC Rajasthan17 Mar 2021

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Aztec Soft Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 878/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jaya Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 10A

…ent, they have to be regarded as per incurium. In this regard the learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933, Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor [2011] 4 SCC 589 and Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra [2014] 16 SCC 623. In the aforesaid decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a situation where there are conflicting decisions of High Court on an issue which are irreconcileable and pronounced by judges of co-equal strength, then the earlier view has to be followed as the later decision has t…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Jivheshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 349/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jaya Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 10A

…ent, they have to be regarded as per incurium. In this regard the learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933, Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor [2011] 4 SCC 589 and Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra [2014] 16 SCC 623. In the aforesaid decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a situation where there are conflicting decisions of High Court on an issue which are irreconcileable and pronounced by judges of co-equal strength, then the earlier view has to be followed as the later decision has t…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cenduit India Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 59/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 431B

…t, they have to be regarded as per incurium. In this regard the learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933, Union of India Vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589 and Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2014) 16 SCC 623. In the aforesaid decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a situation where there are conflicting decisions of High Court on an issue which are irreconcileable and pronounced by judges of co-equal strength, then the earlier view has to be followed as the later d…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Independent Technology Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed and the CO by the assessee is also partly allowed

ITA 1086/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sreenandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92Section 92C

…t, they have to be regarded as per incurium. In this regard the learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933, Union of India Vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589 and Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2014) 16 SCC 623. In the aforesaid decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a situation where there are conflicting decisions of High Court on an issue which are irreconcileable and pronounced by judges of co-equal strength, then the earlier view has to be followed as the later d…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…S. Ahluwalia and K.K. Loomba and, therefore, the decision in the case of Mega in support of the above submission that a decision which is per incurium need not be followed: ( i) A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad H…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…S. Ahluwalia and K.K. Loomba and, therefore, the decision in the case of Mega in support of the above submission that a decision which is per incurium need not be followed: ( i) A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad H…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…S. Ahluwalia and K.K. Loomba and, therefore, the decision in the case of Mega in support of the above submission that a decision which is per incurium need not be followed: ( i) A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602. (ii) UOI vs. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589. (iii) UOI vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754. (iv) UOI vs. R.P. Singh (2014) 7 SCC 340. ( v) St. of Assam vs. Ripa Sarma (2013) 3 SCC 63. (vi) Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1. (vii) Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. St. of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694. 10. The Department has supported the above arguments on the basis of Allahabad H…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 vs. Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd

ITA/652/2016HC Delhi04 Sept 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…n Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and noting the dicta in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 67; Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, held as under:- MAC Appeal No. 652/2016 Page 3 of 5 “16. Since the decision in Trilok Chandra and Ors., (supra) by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges is prior in time in relation to the decisions in Reshma Kumari (supra) and Munna Lal Jain (supra), it is the statement of law on choice of multiplier in the former which is to…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Vishu Impex Pvt Ltd

ITA/431/2016HC Delhi09 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…number of Judges. In case of doubt or disagreement about the decision of the earlier Bench, the well-accepted and desirable practice is that the later Bench would refer the case to a larger Bench.” 20. In Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 while holding that the decision of the co-ordinate bench is binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength, the Supreme Court held that the bench of coordinate strength can only make a reference to a larger bench. In para 9 of the report, the court held as under:- MAC Appeal No.431/2016 Page 10 of 12 “9. It may be not…

Galileo International Inc vs. Director of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/467/2012HC Delhi25 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…tional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 673; Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94; and Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 to contend that in case of divergence of opinion in judgments of benches of co-equal strength, earlier judgment will be taken as a binding precedent. 13. It may be noted that in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65; the three Judge Bench was dealing with a reference made by a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Jo…

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (4 SCC 589) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax