ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd.

154 ITR 172Supreme Court of India1985#1957 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.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 35D

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(ii)section 92f(v)section 41(2)section 80hhesection 35absection 41(4)section 80ia(1)section 43b(f)section 92basection 80ia(5)section 10basection 42

Judgments citing ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd.

ITO, Bangalore vs. Shri. M. Nagaraju, Bangalore

ITA 210/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-07 Late Sri M. Nagaraju, L/R Sri N. Abhilash, The Income Tax Officer, No. 27/8, Maruthi Nilaya, Ward – 5 (2) (4), Vs. 3Rd Main, Bangalore. Hanumanthnagar, Bangalore – 560 019. Pan: Abqpn2924H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 148

…as to fall within the meaning of the 'transfer under section 2(47) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) keeping in mind the principles of judicial discipline as laid down by the SC in the case of Asst.Collector of Central Excise vs Dunlop India Ltd & others reported in 154 ITR 172, allowed the assessee's alternate grounds of appeal on this issue of transfer of the impugned property as on the date of entering into JDA. I do not agree with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) and it is liable to be dismissed. I agree with the assessment order of the Ld.AO on the issue and the same may be restored. 2.Additional Grounds of Appeal. Wh…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Junagadh vs. M/S. Madhvi Construction Co., Amreli

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.R. Adhia, AR
Section 145(3)Section 255(4)Section 44A

…who first heard it. Thus, it is the final conclusion of majority of the members of the Tribunal which is to prevail. We draw support and the guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd.(1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC), wherein it has been observed and held as under: “We desire to add and as was said in Cassell and Co. Ltd. v. Broome [1972] AC 1027 (HL), we hope it will never he necessary for us to say so again that ” in the hierarchical system of courts ” which exists in our country, ” it is necessary for each lower tier “, including the High Court, ” to…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7241/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. CIT-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. AayakarBhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. J.D.J. Mis…

Magnalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2)

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7133/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. Cit-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15Th Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. Pan No. Aaacm5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior Advocate & Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Mr.Samuel Darse, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D.J. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Samuel Darse, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mangalore Refinery & Addl. CIT-3(2), Mumbai Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-3(2) Room No. Mangalore Refinery & 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. 15th Vs. AayakarBhavan, M. K. Floor, Maker Tower, Ewing, Road, Mumbai-400020. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. PAN No. AAACM5132A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. J.D.J. Mis…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court." (emphasis supplied) 8. Further the apex court in the case of Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) has observed as under (page 180) : "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell and 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 lower tier', including the High Court, 'to accept loyally the…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court." (emphasis supplied) 8. Further the apex court in the case of Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) has observed as under (page 180) : "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell and 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 lower tier', including the High Court, 'to accept loyally the…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court." (emphasis supplied) 8. Further the apex court in the case of Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) has observed as under (page 180) : "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell and 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 lower tier', including the High Court, 'to accept loyally the…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court." (emphasis supplied) 8. Further the apex court in the case of Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) has observed as under (page 180) : "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell and 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 lower tier', including the High Court, 'to accept loyally the…

Essar Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1363/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. M/S Essar Properties Pvt. 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., 11, K K Marg, Essar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400024. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essar Properties Pvt., Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. Essar House, 11Keshavrao 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. M/s Essar Properties Pvt. 522, 5th floor, Aayakar Ltd., 11, K K Marg, Essar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400024. PAN No. AAACE0893Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Essar Properties Pvt., DCIT. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. Essar House, 11Keshavrao 522, 5th floor, Aayakar Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACE0893Q Appellan…

DCIT 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1101/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. M/S Essar Properties Pvt. 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., 11, K K Marg, Essar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400024. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essar Properties Pvt., Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. Essar House, 11Keshavrao 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. M/s Essar Properties Pvt. 522, 5th floor, Aayakar Ltd., 11, K K Marg, Essar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400024. PAN No. AAACE0893Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Essar Properties Pvt., DCIT. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. Essar House, 11Keshavrao 522, 5th floor, Aayakar Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACE0893Q Appellan…

DCIT TDS 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Business Channels Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in both the years are allowed

ITA 7047/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

…gal position that in the hierarchical judicial system, that we have in our country, lower tiers of judicial hierarchy has to respectfully follow the views expressed by the higher tiers of judicial hierarchy. In the case of ACIT Vs Dunlop India Limited [(1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, quoting the House of Lords, as follows: 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3124/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 14ASection 44A

…uence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs. And, therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a Court." 8. Further the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. 154 ITR 172 has observed as under:- "We desire to add and as was said in Cassell and 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 lower tier", including the High Court, "to accept loyally the decisions of hig…

Triumph International Finance India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2154/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 57

…same, the CIT(A) ought to have followed the order of the Tribunal in as much as the Tribunal is a higher forum and for this purpose reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd, [1985] 154 ITR 172, which held that "the better wisdom of the Court below must yield to the higher wisdom of the Court above. Therefore, the decision of a High Court on a relevant issue must be followed in the absence of any contrary decision of any other High Court on the issue, because ignoring the decision of a High Court by a Tribunal would amount to demeaning…

DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai vs. Vvf Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. 3137/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Respondent: Smt.Indra G Anand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ctional High Court will prevail over the decision of the Division Bench/Special Bench of the Tribunal [17 SOT 453 (Mum) and 69 TTJ (Del) 650]. This is based on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. 154 ITR 172 (SC) that the better wisdom of the Court below must yield to the higher wisdom of the Court above. Thus, in the absence of a judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the matter, the one by a non-jurisdictional High Court will haw precedence over decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench. In other words reliance on the decisions of H…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

…ierarchical judicial system, that we have in our country, lower tiers of judicial hierarchy has to respectfully follow the views expressed by the higher tiers of judicial hierarchy. In the case of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC), Supreme Court has observed, quoting the House of Lords, as follows: '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 lower tier", including the High Cou…

M/S. Lotus Buildtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 5837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…e, can discharge him from that primary and paramount retainer. ” (Emphasis supplied) 37. At this stage, it is necessary and relevant to respectfully remind the preposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACCE VS. Dunlop India Ltd [1985] 154 ITR 172 [SC] that the judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble High Court have binding effect on the Tribunal and the orders of the Tribunal have persuasive value or effect on the other Benches of the Tribunal. Speaking for the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, their Lordships held that the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to h…

M/S. Lotus Buildtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 5836/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…e, can discharge him from that primary and paramount retainer. ” (Emphasis supplied) 37. At this stage, it is necessary and relevant to respectfully remind the preposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACCE VS. Dunlop India Ltd [1985] 154 ITR 172 [SC] that the judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble High Court have binding effect on the Tribunal and the orders of the Tribunal have persuasive value or effect on the other Benches of the Tribunal. Speaking for the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, their Lordships held that the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to h…

M/S. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

ITA 6947/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…e, can discharge him from that primary and paramount retainer. ” (Emphasis supplied) 37. At this stage, it is necessary and relevant to respectfully remind the preposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACCE VS. Dunlop India Ltd [1985] 154 ITR 172 [SC] that the judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble High Court have binding effect on the Tribunal and the orders of the Tribunal have persuasive value or effect on the other Benches of the Tribunal. Speaking for the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, their Lordships held that the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to h…