Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of UP AIR 1980 SC 1762

3 SCC 719Reported decision1980#3573 most cited

What is Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of UP AIR 1980 SC 1762 authority for?

A binding precedent retains its authority even if it was poorly argued, inadequately considered, or fallaciously reasoned. New discoveries or argumentative novelties cannot compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of UP · binding precedent · authority of decision · poorly argued · inadequately considered · fallaciously reasoned · argumentative novelty

Sections most often in play

Section 115JSection 115JASection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(v)section 80hhesection 35absection 92f(ii)section 80ia(1)section 80ia(5)section 10basection 115jasection 35asubstance over formsection 92(1)section 42

Judgments citing Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of UP AIR 1980 SC 1762

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4011/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…ld that the income can be taxed as business income because that aspect of the matter was not examined. We are unable to see any merits in this approach. As laid down by the apex Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra vs. State of UP AIR 1980 SC 1762 (1980) 3 SCC 719 (p. 1764 of AIR 1980 SC) “Every new discovery nor argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.., A decision does not lose Its authority merely because It was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned,...". Learned CIT(A) was thus, in error in not following a binding Judicial precedent, His…

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4010/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…ld that the income can be taxed as business income because that aspect of the matter was not examined. We are unable to see any merits in this approach. As laid down by the apex Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra vs. State of UP AIR 1980 SC 1762 (1980) 3 SCC 719 (p. 1764 of AIR 1980 SC) “Every new discovery nor argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.., A decision does not lose Its authority merely because It was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned,...". Learned CIT(A) was thus, in error in not following a binding Judicial precedent, His…

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4009/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…ld that the income can be taxed as business income because that aspect of the matter was not examined. We are unable to see any merits in this approach. As laid down by the apex Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra vs. State of UP AIR 1980 SC 1762 (1980) 3 SCC 719 (p. 1764 of AIR 1980 SC) “Every new discovery nor argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent.., A decision does not lose Its authority merely because It was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned,...". Learned CIT(A) was thus, in error in not following a binding Judicial precedent, His…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Fugro Geoteam As, Dehradun

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 5928/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Amit Arora & Suraj Nangia, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3

…t as it ought to be in the light of certain underlying value notions. As for the legal arguments advanced by the learned Commissioner (DR), as was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra vs. State of UP AIR 1980 se 1762 : (1980) 3 SCC 719 (p. 1764 of AIR 1980 SC), "Every new discovery nor argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent ... A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned .... ". Similarly, in the case of 24 CO No.194/Del/2014 Kesho Ram & Co. vs. Union of In…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-I, New Delhi vs. M/S Aci Wireless Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/313/2013HC Delhi10 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…

Commissioner of Income Tax: Delhi-V vs. Rites Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/295/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…

Commissioner of Income Tax : Delhi -V vs. Rited Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/293/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/268/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, New Delhi vs. Mira Exim Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/346/2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…

CIT VI vs. Verizon India Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/277/2013HC Delhi29 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…

New Delhi Hotels Ltd vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/238/2013HC Delhi17 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…

CIT vs. Manju Bansal

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/205/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…

CIT vs. Nirmal Bansal

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/198/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…and the fact that a particular argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value. 140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. 141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to cross-examin…