CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf

113 ITR 589High Court1978#375 most cited

What is CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf authority for?

An Income-tax Tribunal, operating anywhere in the country, must respect and follow the law laid down by any High Court, even if it is a non-jurisdictional High Court, as long as there is no contrary decision from another High Court on that specific legal point. The law declared by such a High Court is considered the final law of the land for the Tribunal.

235

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf · 113 ITR 589 · High Court decision binding on Tribunal · non-jurisdictional High Court · judicial precedent · contrary High Court decision · Income Tax Act · section 140A(3) · appellate procedure · legal hierarchy

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 153Section 158ABSection 144C

Issues it is cited on

section 158absection 261section 144cofsection 22(1)stay of demandsection 11(3)section 153(4)section 140section 282a(1)section 144c(4)reference to tposection 282a

Judgments citing CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…y to rely upon earlier decisions of this Tribunal even if we were a party to them. Such a High Court being a non-jurisdictional High Court does not alter the position as laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom). Therefore, we do not consider permissible to rely upon the earlier decisions of this Tribunal even if them is by a Special Bench. It will be wholly inappropriate for us views of one of the High Courts based on our perceptions reasonableness of the respective viewpoints, as such an exercise will de lacto amount to sitting in judgment over t…

Shishir Kumar Das, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amravathi

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

ITA 38/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Feb 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2018-19 Shishir Kumar Das, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 029. Income Tax, Pan: Aitpd 6386 K Circle-10(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Shri Pavithran Kumar Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/02/2021 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pavithran Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ITR 192 (SC) has held that if there are two views possible on the same issue, the one which is in favour of the assessee should be adopted. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Godavari Saraf reported in [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom.) has held that if there is no decision of the Jurisdictional High Court then, the decision of the non- jurisdictional High Court is also binding. Therefore, considering the above, I hold that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (supra) is applicable to both the employer as well as employee’s…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1767/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
Section 115Section 11JSection 143(3)Section 90Section 90(3)

…ITA Nos: 1767 and 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 37 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar, Vice President and, Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member] ITA No.: 1767/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Bank of India …………………….. Appellant Taxation Department, 8th floor, Star House, C 5 G Block, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACB0472C] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai ………………….Respondent ITA No.: 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai …………………….. Appellant Vs. Bank of India…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) MUFG Bank Ltd, Vs. ACIT (International Taxation), 5th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, NH-8, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCT3880D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv Shri Hiten Chande, Adv Shri Surender Bist, CA Revenue by: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 27/07/2020 Date of pronouncement 16/10/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee aga…

Mohd. Saffan Baig, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 340/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Muddu Vijay, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N.Swapna, DR
Section 54Section 54F

…es that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts but chooses to follow the decisions against the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) has held that - in the absence of a decision from the jurisdictional High Court, the decision of another High Court which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act has to be examined in the light of the details submitted by the…

Mohammed Yasser Sattar Baig, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2`), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Muddu Vijay, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N.Swapna, DR
Section 54Section 54F

…es that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts but chooses to follow the decisions against the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) has held that - in the absence of a decision from the jurisdictional High Court, the decision of another High Court which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act has to be examined in the light of the details submitted by the…

Abdul Arif Baig, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Muddu Vijay, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N.Swapna, DR
Section 54Section 54F

…es that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts but chooses to follow the decisions against the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) has held that - in the absence of a decision from the jurisdictional High Court, the decision of another High Court which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act has to be examined in the light of the details submitted by the…

Juveria Begun, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2224/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Muddu Vijay, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N.Swapna, DR
Section 54Section 54F

…es that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts but chooses to follow the decisions against the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) has held that - in the absence of a decision from the jurisdictional High Court, the decision of another High Court which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act has to be examined in the light of the details submitted by the…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4950/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…s above, its no longer to open to the Tribunal to follow the earlier view which has not found favour with the higher judicial forum. He also invites our attention to Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court‟s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Godavaridevi Saraf [(1978) 113 ITR 589] in support of the proposition that even a non jurisdictional High Court, in the absence of anything to the contrary by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, is equally binding on the Tribunal. We are thus urged to follow the decision which has been approved by Hon‟ble High Court and has thus merged therein. In any case, a decision unmindful of unam…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4949/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…s above, its no longer to open to the Tribunal to follow the earlier view which has not found favour with the higher judicial forum. He also invites our attention to Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court‟s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Godavaridevi Saraf [(1978) 113 ITR 589] in support of the proposition that even a non jurisdictional High Court, in the absence of anything to the contrary by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, is equally binding on the Tribunal. We are thus urged to follow the decision which has been approved by Hon‟ble High Court and has thus merged therein. In any case, a decision unmindful of unam…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…s above, its no longer to open to the Tribunal to follow the earlier view which has not found favour with the higher judicial forum. He also invites our attention to Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Godavaridevi Saraf [(1978) 113 ITR 589] in support of the proposition that even a non jurisdictional High Court, in the absence of anything to the contrary by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, is equally binding on the Tribunal. We are thus urged to follow the decision which has been approved by Hon’ble High Court and has thus merged therein. In any case, a decision unmindful of unam…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2164/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…s above, its no longer to open to the Tribunal to follow the earlier view which has not found favour with the higher judicial forum. He also invites our attention to Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Godavaridevi Saraf [(1978) 113 ITR 589] in support of the proposition that even a non jurisdictional High Court, in the absence of anything to the contrary by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, is equally binding on the Tribunal. We are thus urged to follow the decision which has been approved by Hon’ble High Court and has thus merged therein. In any case, a decision unmindful of unam…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 305/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.304 & 305/Chny/2018 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, 2Nd Floor, Tidel Park, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Vs. No.4, Canal Bank Road, Room No.712, Wanaparthy Block, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. D. Manoj Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan:

For Appellant: Mr. D. Manoj Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan
Section 195Section 201(1)

…decision on the issue. 7. On the above facts, when there is only one decision of the High Court, then the same requires to be followed by us. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf [Smt] [1978] 113 ITR 589 [Bom] We, therefore, confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeals of the Revenue. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” After going through the operative portion above said, there is no iota of doubt that the payments in question made by the assessee cannot be subjected to the applicability of…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 304/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.304 & 305/Chny/2018 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, 2Nd Floor, Tidel Park, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Vs. No.4, Canal Bank Road, Room No.712, Wanaparthy Block, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. D. Manoj Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan:

For Appellant: Mr. D. Manoj Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan
Section 195Section 201(1)

…decision on the issue. 7. On the above facts, when there is only one decision of the High Court, then the same requires to be followed by us. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf [Smt] [1978] 113 ITR 589 [Bom] We, therefore, confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeals of the Revenue. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” After going through the operative portion above said, there is no iota of doubt that the payments in question made by the assessee cannot be subjected to the applicability of…

Shell India Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4911/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Trent House, First Floor, Large Tax Units (Ltu) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaics1404P Appellant Respondednt

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 92CSection 92C(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI Before Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-tax- Trent House, First Floor, large tax units (LTU) G-Block, Plot No.C-60, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 PAN : AAICS1404P APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate Respondent by Shri A. Mohan CIT-DR Date of hearing 07. 01-2020 Date of pronouncement 15-01-2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, JM : 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income tax Act (Act), is directed against the order of l…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (TDS) 1(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3785/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No. 3785/Mum/2016 For (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Ito (Tds)-1(2)(4), (Formerly Known As Idea 803, K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Cellular Ltd.), Skyline Icon, Vs. Hospital Building, 1St Floor, 86/92 Andheri Kurla Charni Road (W), Road, Marol Naka, Andheri Mumbai-400002. (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaacb2100P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi with Shri C.D. Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja CIT-DR with Shri V.K. Agarwal ( Sr DR)
Section 133ASection 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

…t is the strength of the hierarchical judicial system.' 12. The question whether the non-jurisdictional High Court binds the Tribunal benches or not came up for consideration before Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CJT\. Smt. Godwaridevi Saraf [ 1978] 113 ITR 589. That was a case in which Their Lordships were in seisin of the question as to "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of decision in the case of'A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO [ 1973] 90 ITR 116 (Mad) the penalty imposed on the assessee under s. 140A(3) was legal? The specific question before Their Lordships thus was whether…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…een decided, then the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court becomes binding on the Tribunals operating all over the country. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf reported in 113 ITR 589 (Bom) and also decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Bhagini Nivedita Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 100 taxmann.com 375 (Pune-Trib.). On the last date of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee furnished tabulated details and pointed out that the land utilized for the purpose was 179.02 Hectors, which was valued at ₹…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…een decided, then the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court becomes binding on the Tribunals operating all over the country. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf reported in 113 ITR 589 (Bom) and also decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Bhagini Nivedita Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 100 taxmann.com 375 (Pune-Trib.). On the last date of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee furnished tabulated details and pointed out that the land utilized for the purpose was 179.02 Hectors, which was valued at ₹…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…een decided, then the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court becomes binding on the Tribunals operating all over the country. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf reported in 113 ITR 589 (Bom) and also decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Bhagini Nivedita Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 100 taxmann.com 375 (Pune-Trib.). On the last date of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee furnished tabulated details and pointed out that the land utilized for the purpose was 179.02 Hectors, which was valued at ₹…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 931/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…een decided, then the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court becomes binding on the Tribunals operating all over the country. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf reported in 113 ITR 589 (Bom) and also decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Bhagini Nivedita Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 100 taxmann.com 375 (Pune-Trib.). On the last date of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee furnished tabulated details and pointed out that the land utilized for the purpose was 179.02 Hectors, which was valued at ₹…