CIT v. B.R. Constructions

202 ITR 222High Court1993#1262 most cited

What is CIT v. B.R. Constructions authority for?

A judicial decision that is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition does not form a binding judicial precedent.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.R. Constructions · 202 ITR 222 · binding precedent · estimation exercise · no legal proposition · accommodation entries · bogus transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 68Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 92(1)retrospective amendmentsection 251(1)section 251(1)(a)beneficial ownersection 251section 35transfer pricing adjustmententry operatorsection 92ca(3)dispute resolution panelbook profits

Judgments citing CIT v. B.R. Constructions

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1554/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1554, 956/Hyd/2018, 1599/Hyd/2019 & 15/Hyd/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 Manjeera Projects Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) PAN:AAOFM0872C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR Date of hearing: 26/08/2021 Date of pronouncement: 08/09/2021 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.…

Vithaldas and Company (Sicne Dissolve), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 757/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kumar Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M.Narmada, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e fact also remains that such an estimation depends on facts of each and every case than involving any legal interpretation which could be treated as a valid precedent as per the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. B.R.Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned bogus purchases in all these three year(s) deserve to be restricted to disallowance @8% only in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall follow…

Vithaldas and Company (Sicne Dissolve), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 756/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kumar Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M.Narmada, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e fact also remains that such an estimation depends on facts of each and every case than involving any legal interpretation which could be treated as a valid precedent as per the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. B.R.Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned bogus purchases in all these three year(s) deserve to be restricted to disallowance @8% only in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall follow…

Vithaldas and Company (Sicne Dissolve), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 755/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kumar Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M.Narmada, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e fact also remains that such an estimation depends on facts of each and every case than involving any legal interpretation which could be treated as a valid precedent as per the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs. B.R.Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned bogus purchases in all these three year(s) deserve to be restricted to disallowance @8% only in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case. Necessary computation shall follow…

Nagelly Ashok Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(5), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 726/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143

…at the assessee had further failed to furnish documentary evidences of various expenses claimed, net profit disclosed in the P&L a/c cannot be relied upon. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s larger bench decision CIT vs B.R.Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) that such an estimation not discussing all the relevant facts does not form a binding precedent. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. . Pronounced in Open Court on 17th August 2021. (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: the 17th August, 2021. * gmv Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. Sri Nagelly Ashok Reddy, Do…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Taxl, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Sri Subrahmaneswara Transport Contractors, Kurnool

ITA 1962/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Muzumdar, D.R
Section 143Section 40

…rit in Revenue’s instant first substantive grievance since an estimation of profit component is based on peculiar facts of the case which is not a binding judicial precedent as per hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs BR Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). We thus decline Revenue’s instant first and foremost grievance. 4. Next comes the Revenue’s latter argument that assessee is not entitled for sec.40(b) interest and salary to partner(s) once its books have been rejected as per hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision (supra). The same is also found carrying no substance as their lordsh…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nava Bharat Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 634/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Ranka, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80GSection 92C

…sider the legislature scheme in Chapter-X (supra). And that deviates therefrom would not only violates the same but also would amounts to non-compliance of “between persons” in Section 92F. 9. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s full bench decision in (1993) 202 ITR 333 (AP) CIT Vs. B.R.Constructions also holds that a judicial precedent ceases to be binding in the following conditions: “37. The effect of binding precedents in India is that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all the courts. Indeed, article 141 of the Constitution embodies the rule of precedent. All the subordinate courts are bound…

Ashwin Joshi, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 284/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Ashwin Joshi, Hyderabad. Pan Agxpj 6884F …..Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R)
Section 143(3)

…nt latter argument as well since such an estimation does not form a valid precedent keeping in mind since not even pertaining to the very locality. We further quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court full bench’ decision in CIT Vs. B. R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) (FB) defining the contours of a judicial precedent to be applicable only if it discusses all the relevant facts involved as identical footing followed by the relevant statutory provisions. We accordingly reject the assessee's instant latter argument as well. 6. This assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on…

Jaya Sree Julakanti, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 347/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, D.R
Section 143(3)

…ed discussion in para 5.2 that this tribunal’s coordinate bench decision(s) have already adopted 2 to 3% as the income element thereof. We find no merit in assessee’s instant stand per se since neither such estimation can be taken as a precedent as per (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) CIT vs B.R. Constructions (FB) nor he has filed on record all the corresponding details in support of such a meager profit rate. The fact also remains that the department has not drawn any comparative chart of the profit element in retail liquor sales business in and around assessee’s locality. Faced with this situation we deem it proper to…

Ramesh Singh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1852/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)

…e bench’s and hon'ble jurisdictional high court have been directing such an estimation @3% in retail liquor sale business. 4. We find no force in assessee’s foregoing contentions per se. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s in CIT Vs. BR Constructions (1993) [202 ITR 222] (AP) (FB) held long back that only a judicial decision discussing the relevant statutory provisions in the light of the corresponding facts from a valid precedent and not otherwise. Mr.Rao fails to rebut the clinching fact that such an estimation is based on a peculiar facts of the case than discussing at length the entire factual matrix in the…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1766/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…g judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics Vs DCIT [(2005) 4 SOT 84 (Mum)] and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs BR Constructions [(1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP)], a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not the case here. All t…

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1757/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…g judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics Vs DCIT [(2005) 4 SOT 84 (Mum)] and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs BR Constructions [(1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP)], a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not the case here. All t…

Meghmani Organics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2204/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics v. Dy. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 84 (Mum.) and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT v. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222/[1994] 73 Taxman 473 (AP), a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not…

Ratnabali Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd., [Earlier Known As Ratnabali Capital Markets Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl.CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 356/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate &Sweta Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of Nice Bombay Transport (P) Ltd(supra) can not be relied upon in assessee`s favour. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to quote the Judgment of Hon`ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP-HC), wherein the Hon`ble Court held as follows: “35. The ratio decidendi of a judgment is a binding precedent. The hierarchy of authority with regard to binding precedent is summed up in paragraph 28 at page 158 of "Salmond on Jurisprudence", Twelfth Edition, as follows : "The general rule is that a court is bound by the decision of all cour…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…ax Settlement Commission’s adjudication in the said preceding three assessment year(s) restricting the impugned disallowance pertaining to three AYs of exempt income does not form a binding precedent being per incarium as per CIT vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) (FB). We thus reverse the CIT(A)’s above lower appellate findings to this effect. 8. Next comes equally important aspect of quantification of the impugned disallowance under these three head(s) of direct, proportionate interest and administrative expenditure. The assessee’s suo motu disallowance figure(s) of ₹10.1, ₹12.04 and 15.97 (in lakh…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…ax Settlement Commission’s adjudication in the said preceding three assessment year(s) restricting the impugned disallowance pertaining to three AYs of exempt income does not form a binding precedent being per incarium as per CIT vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) (FB). We thus reverse the CIT(A)’s above lower appellate findings to this effect. 8. Next comes equally important aspect of quantification of the impugned disallowance under these three head(s) of direct, proportionate interest and administrative expenditure. The assessee’s suo motu disallowance figure(s) of ₹10.1, ₹12.04 and 15.97 (in lakh…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…ax Settlement Commission’s adjudication in the said preceding three assessment year(s) restricting the impugned disallowance pertaining to three AYs of exempt income does not form a binding precedent being per incarium as per CIT vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) (FB). We thus reverse the CIT(A)’s above lower appellate findings to this effect. 8. Next comes equally important aspect of quantification of the impugned disallowance under these three head(s) of direct, proportionate interest and administrative expenditure. The assessee’s suo motu disallowance figure(s) of ₹10.1, ₹12.04 and 15.97 (in lakh…

Ganapathi Jana Seva Bhander, Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(Exemption) Ward 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1442/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1442/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ganapathi Jana Seva Bhandar Vs. Ito(Exemption), Ward-1(1), Kolkata 31, Shakespeare Sarani, 4Th Floor, Room No.405A & B, Kolkata "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatg2294E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Parash Nath Keshari, Fca Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 25, Kolkata Order Dated 25.04.2019 Passed In Case No.121/Cit(A)-25/Kol/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance In The Instant Appeal Is That Both The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Law As Well Facts In Disallowing Section 10(34) Exemption In Respect Of Dividend Received Amounting To Rs.10,57,484/-. Learned Counsel’S Case During The Hearing Is That The Impugned Exemption Has Been Wrongly Denied To The Taxpayer. The Revenue’S Case On The Other Hand Rests On Section 11(7) Of The Act Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Parash Nath Keshari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 154

…e exemption benefits other than section 10(23C) of the Act. This tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision (supra) does not take note of the same as in evident from the operative para 6 of the order. The same is treated as per incuriam as per the case law (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). I conclude in these facts both the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the impugned exemption to the assessee trust. The assessee fails in its sole substantive grievance. 4. The assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 22.11.2019. (S. S. Godara) JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; "दनांक/ Date:22/11/201…

ITO, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 240/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.240/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito, Ward-35(3), Kolkata. Vs. M/S. Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. 13, N.S. Road, Rbi Building (Annexe), Kol- 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak6244L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. A. K. Nayak, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata Dated 30.11.2017 Passed In Case No.227/Cit(A)-10/Wd.-35(3)/14-15/16-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grounds Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse The Cit(A) Action Holding The Assessee Eligible For Section 80P(2)(D) Deduction Of Rs.6,97,20,658/- Disallowed In The Assessment Framed On 08.12.2016. Case File Suggests That The Assessee Had Derived The Impugned Interest Income From Parking Of Its Surplus Funds In Fixed Deposits With The Union Bank Of India & Central Bank Of India Fetching Interest Of Rs.6,48,17,859/- & 49,02,799/-; Respectively. The Assessing Officer Quoted Hon’Ble Apex Court’S Decision In Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. Ito (2010) In 188 Taxman 282 (Sc)

For Appellant: Dr. A. K. Nayak, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ated 01.03.2018 (supra) is not very well founded since going against the hon'ble jurisdictional subsequent judgment on the very issue. We therefore treat learned co-ordinate bench’s earlier order to be per inquriam as per the CIT vs. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP)(F.B) since not taking into consideration the law settled by hon'ble jurisdictional high court. The Revenue therefore succeeds in its sole substantive ground in principle. 9. This leaves us with the equally significant aspect of computation of the impugned sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. There is hardly any dispute about the assessee having deri…

The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mastek Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 514/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Appeal(S) By Asset. Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1188/Ahd/2015 2009-10 M/S Mastek Ltd., D.C.I.T., (Osd)-1,Circle-4, 804/805Ahmedabad House, Opp. C.N. Vidyalaya, Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad -380 006 Pan:Aaacm9908Q 2. 1852/Ahd/2015 2009-10 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 3. It(Tp) 172/Ahd/2016 2010-11 M/S. Mastek Ltd. J.C.I.T., Ahmedabad Range-4, Ahmedabad 4. It(Tp) 514/Ahd/2016 2010-11 A.C.I.T., M/S. Mastek Ltd. Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Murari, Cit- D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT- D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…judicial precedents. We have also noted that in view of the decision a coordinate bench, in the case of JKT Fabrics v. Dy. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 84 (Mum.) and following the Full bench decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT v. BR Constructions [1993] 202 ITR 222/[1994] 73 Taxman 473 (AP), a decision disregarding an earlier binding precedent on the issue is per incurium. Such decisions cannot be basis for sending the matters to special bench since occasion for reference to special bench arises when binding and conflicting judicial precedents from coordinate benches come up for consideration. That was not…