How many judgments cite ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd.?

58 judgments on BharatTax cite ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (154 ITR 172), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 36(1)(viia), Section 37(1), Section 139(1), Section 143(1).

ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd.

154 ITR 172Supreme Court of India1985#1958 most cited

What is ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. authority for?

The Indian judicial system operates on a hierarchical structure where lower courts, including High Courts, must loyally accept and follow the decisions rendered by higher appellate tribunals like the Supreme Court. This principle ensures the proper functioning and consistency of the judicial system.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. · 154 ITR 172 · Supreme Court decisions binding · judicial hierarchy India · stare decisis · precedent lower courts · acceptance of higher court decisions · binding authority of SC · judicial discipline · lower tier accept higher tier decisions

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144C Section 35D

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(ii)section 92f(v)section 41(2)section 80hhe section 35ab section 41(4)section 80ia(1)section 43b(f)section 92ba section 80ia(5)section 10ba section 42

Judgments citing ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd.

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

…atter of judicial propriety are bound to follow the view so expressed by the Hon'ble High Courts in decisions cited supra. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACCE vs Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC): "8. We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. vs. Broome (1972) AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that "in the hierarchical system of Courts" which exists in our country, "it is necessary for lower tier", including the High Court, "to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers", "It i…

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPUR vs. SRI SHANMUGAVEL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1048/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Saddik Ahmed, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

…ses and prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Star Paper Mills Ltd. referred to supra and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue: a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACCE v Dunlop India Ltd & Ors [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) Sri Shanmugavel Mills Pvt. Ltd :: 13 :: b) Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Nagaraj and Others v State of Karnataka & Ors [1993] SCC 595 (SC) c) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sub Inspector Rooplal &Anr v Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors 2000 1 SCC 64 (SC) d) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v A.P.Jaiswal&…

DIPTI JAGDISH SATWANI,MUMBAI vs. AO, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3669/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. BalajiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dipti Jagdish Satwani Flat 402, Moru Mahal Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bandra West, S.O. Mumbai - 400050. Maharashtra. [PAN:DKKPS4789B] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai Mumbai – 400012. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri V. Balaji For the Respondent/Department : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Conclusion of hearing : 25.09.2025 Pronouncement of order : 30.09.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

ITA 435/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 121, Adarns Plaza, 60, Feet Road, Tiruppur - 641 602. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Prabhu Spining Mills Private Limited, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : आदेश /Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 (In Short “Id.Cit(A)”) Dated 04.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Taken As The Lead Appeal For Adjudication Of The Issues Involved. The Only Issue Which Has Been Raised In Appeal By The Revenue Is With Regard To Determination Of Quantum Of Deduction U/S.80-Ia Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act"). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

…ases and prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Star Paper Mills Ltd. referred to supra and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue: a) Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACCE v Dunlop India Ltd & Ors [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Nagaraj and Others v State of Karnataka & Ors [1993] SCC 595 (SC) c) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sub Inspector Rooplal & Anr v Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors 2000 1 SCC 64 (SC) d) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v A.P.Jaiswal & Ors 1 SCC 748 e) Hon'ble Third Member of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

ITA 433/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

…ases and prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Star Paper Mills Ltd. referred to supra and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue: a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACCE v Dunlop India Ltd & Ors [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) b) Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Nagaraj and Others v State of Karnataka & Ors [1993] SCC 595 (SC) c) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sub Inspector Rooplal & Anr v Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors 2000 1 SCC 64 (SC) d) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v A.P.Jaiswal & Ors 1 SCC 748 e) Hon’ble Third Member of…

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)

…er of judicial propriety are bound to\nfollow the view so expressed by the Hon'ble High Courts in decisions cited supra. In this regard, it\nis also relevant to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACCE vs Dunlop\nIndia Ltd., [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC):\n\"8. We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. vs. Broome (1972) AC\n1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that \"in the\nhierarchical system of Courts\" which exists in our country, \"it is necessary for\nlower tier\", including the High Court, \"to accept loyally the decisions of the higher\nti…

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…atter of judicial propriety are bound to follow the view so expressed by the Hon'ble High Courts in decisions cited supra. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACCE vs Dunlop India Ltd., [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC): "8. We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. vs. Broome (1972) AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that "in the hierarchical system of Courts" which exists in our country, "it is necessary for lower tier", including the High Court, "to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers". "It…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 727/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…ann.com 73 (Mum)], wherein, speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President), the coordinate bench has observed as follows: 7. ... We may usefully take note of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172, wherein the Their Lordships quoted, with approval, from the decision of House of Lords to the effect that "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome [1972] AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that "in the hierarchical system of courts" which exists in our country, "it is necessary for ea…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 726/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2006-07

Section 115JSection 250

…com 73\n(Mum)], wherein, speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President), the coordinate\nbench has observed as follows:\n7. ... We may usefully take note of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of Asstt. CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172, wherein\nthe Their Lordships quoted, with approval, from the decision of House of Lords\nto the effect that \"We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v.\nBroome [1972] AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so\nagain that \"in the hierarchical system of courts\" which exists in our country, \"it\nis necessa…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 725/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: MS. Deepa Hiray (Addl. CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…nn.com 73 (Mum)], wherein, speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President), the coordinate bench has observed as follows: 7. ………. We may usefully take note of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172, wherein the Their Lordships quoted, with approval, from the decision of House of Lords ITA No. 726, 725 & 727/Mum/20258 (A.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09) Alok Industries Ltd. to the effect that "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome [1972] AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that "in the hi…

ALOK KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 246A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2019-20 Alok Kumar Jain, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner C/o. Blackstone Advisors India Private Ltd., of Income Tax, 5th Floor, Express Towers, Circle 3(3)(1), Nariman Point, Bangalore. Mumbai – 400 021. PAN: AJLPJ 1031E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Balaji V., CA Respondent by : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1.…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF MIDTOWN PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…rsuasive value and should be generally followed. The relevant part of the decision in paras 7 and 8 is as follows: “7. While on this issue, we may usefully take note of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC)], wherein the Their Lordships quoted, with approval, from the decision of House of Lords to the effect that "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome [1972] AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that "in the hierarchical system of courts" which exists in our country, "it is necessary…

DLF MIDTOWN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

SUMEET SUBHASH NARANG ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 818/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

…Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) of not following orders of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble ITAT is contrary to the following judicial pronouncements: Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC)] Decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Mylan Laboratories Limited V. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/income-Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi & Another [TS-46- HC-2022(TEL)] Order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Northern Coalfields Limited V…

PANACEA BOITEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT NATIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aaacp5335J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 92BSection 92C

DHYAN SWAMIBAPA TRUST,SENJALDHAM, TEHSIL : SAVARKUNDLA, DIST: AMRELI vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, Ito Senjaldham, Vs. Ward-1(Exemption), Tehsil Saavarkundala Rajkot. Dist. Amreli-364515 C/O. Sanghavi & Company, Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaatd1598E

For Appellant: Shri G.R Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

…1)(a) or 11(2) of the Act". Much as we would like to refrain from commenting upon a coordinate bench decision, we cannot help quoting from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC)] in which Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has quoted from the decision of House of Lords as under: "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome [1972] AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that "in the hierarchical system of courts" which exists in our country, "it is necessary for each low…

M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 510/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 The State Bank Of India Asst. Cit Circle-Patiala, (Successor To State Bank Of Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Patiala), Patiala-147001 Dgm & Cfo, Sbi, Local Head Office – Chandigarh, 2Nd Floor, Sector 17A, Chandigarh- 160017. Pan No. Aaccs 0143 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved & Mr. Ninadpatade, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…vant in decisions cited supra. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme to note the following observations of the Hon to note the following observations of the Hon Court in ACCE vs Dunlop India Ltd., [1985] 154 ITR 172 Court in ACCE vs Dunlop India Ltd., [1985] 154 ITR 172 Court in ACCE vs Dunlop India Ltd., [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC): ―8. We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. vs. Broome (1972) AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never td. vs. Broome (197…

CAPGEMINI SE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CAPGEMINI SA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-(INTL TAX) CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.1 to 4 of the appeal are allowed

ITA 608/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 608/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2017-18) Capgemini S.E, (Formerly Known As Capgemini Sa) C/O. Capgemini Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd., Block 3, C- Wing, 4Th Floor, Gapgemini Knowledge Park, Yosemite, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai 400 708. Pan: Aadcc-5353-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt . Commissioner Of Income Tax(Int. Tax), Circle -2(1)(1), Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri M.M.Golvala With Shri Rounak Vardhan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2023

For Appellant: Shri M.M.Golvala with Shri Rounak VardhanFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143Section 5Section 9

…avoid multiplicity of litigation. In support of his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Asstt. Collector Central Excise Chandan Nagar vs. Dunlop India Ltd., 154 ITR 172. He further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, 193 3 ITA NO. 608/MUM/2022(A.Y.2017-18)) ITR 321 (SC) to contend that rule of consistency should be followed to curb multiplicity of litigation. 3. Per contra, Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. Th…

THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

ITA 538/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

…atter of judicial propriety are bound to follow the view so expressed by the Hon‟ble High Courts in decisions cited supra. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in ACCE vs Dunlop India Ltd., [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC): ―8. We desire to add and as was said in Cassell & Co. Ltd. vs. Broome (1972) AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that "in the hierarchical system of Courts" which exists in our country, "it is necessary for lower tier", including the High Court, "to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers". "It…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3