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

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 930/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 929/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

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 ₹…

Ifc Universal Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4661/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S. Ifc Universal Ito 8(2)(1) Room No. 477, Aayakar Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11, Adeshwar Arcade, Mumbai-400020. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8524P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Lax (Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses On Payments Of Freight Made To Jet Airways (India)Ltd Rs.7.15.765/- & To Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Rs.50,38,699/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Appreciating The Submissions Tiled By The Appellant, That The Introduction To Proviso To Section 201(I)Is Explanatory/Clarificatory & Therefore Should Apply Retrospectively & Therefore Payments Of Freight Without Tds

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40

…ed CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Hon’ble Delhi high Court being non jurisdictional High Court does not alter the position in law as has been further analyzed by Jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Born) and followed by co-ordinate benches in case of ACIT v. Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Nt. Ltd. (2009) 118 ITD) I (Pane), and also RKP Co. V. ITO. Ward Korba, ITA No. 106/RPR/2016, ITAT, Raipur. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add and or amend, the above grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the ass…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1795/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1794/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

JCIT (OSD), Chennai vs. Sify Technologies Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1793/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAACS 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "न…

Asst CIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citygold Investments P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4160/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Cit – 9(2)(2) V. M/S. City Gold Investments P. Ltd., R.No. 665A, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No. 7, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms S. Padmaja
Section 139Section 3Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. CIT – 9(2)(2) v. M/s. City Gold Investments P. Ltd., R.No. 665A, 6th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No. 7, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marol, MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 093 PAN NO: AACCC 7365 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Department by : Ms S. Padmaja Date of Hearing : 17.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the ord…

Shri Shri Biharilal Patel, Raigarh(Cg) vs. The Income Tax Ooficer-1, Raigarh(Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 218/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Biharilal Patel, The Income Tax Officer-(1), Prop. M/S Biharilal Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions, Chakradhar Nagar, P.O. Dongamahua, Vs. Raigarh (Cg) Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Armpp2841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao (Advocate) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/06/2018

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar (DR)
Section 143Section 194ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Biharilal Patel, The Income Tax Officer-(1), Prop. M/s Biharilal Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions, Chakradhar Nagar, P.O. Dongamahua, Vs. Raigarh (CG) Raigarh (C.G.) PAN: ARMPP2841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao (Advocate) Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar (DR) Date of Hearing: 09/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 04/06/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Co…

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)

…That 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 CIT Vs Godavaridevi Saraf [(1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom)]. 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 & Anr. vs. ITO & Anr. [(1973) 90 ITR 116 (Mad)] the penalty imposed on the assessee under s. 140A(3) was legal ? The specific question before Their Lor…

ITO 5(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle Restaurants P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 966/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 966/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer 5(1)(4) Hardcastle Restaurants Private Limited R.No.569, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 1001-1002,10Th Floor, Tower-3 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Indiabulls Finance Centre Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road Mumbai-400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafh-1333-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shree Kumar Kabra,Ld. Ar Revenue By : M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shree Kumar Kabra,Ld. ARFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…t off from the profits declared for the present assessment year. The decision of the honorable Gujrat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd (Supra) made this point very clear. The Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of Godavari devi Saraf 113 ITR 589 and the Honorable ITAT Mumbai in the case of Piyush C Mehata 52 SOT 27 have made it clear that the decision of a higher judicial body needs to be followed even if it’s non- jurisdictional one. It is also to be noted that the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bisleri Sales Ltd 58 SOT 73 has allowed such relief by following the decision of the Gujrat High…

Upl Environmental Engineers Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Range-4, Baroda

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

ITA 2191/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2017AY 2010-11
Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ITA No. 2191/Ahd/2014 UPL Environmental Engineers Ltd vs. ACIT Assessment Year : 2010-11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and S S Godara JM] Assessment Year: 2010-11 UPL Environmental Engineers Ltd .......…………......Appellant Block No.1, Near Banco Products Ltd., Village : Bhayali, Dist: Baroda-391 410 [PAN : AADCA 4427 H] Vs. ACIT .......................Respondent Range-4, Baroda Appearances by: SN Soparkar for the appellant Albinus Tirkey for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : September 14, 2017 Date of pronouncing the o…

Viacom 18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3776/MUM/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Armaity IchhaporiaFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru (Sr.DR)
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…on'ble the issue involved, as opposed to sections of Bombay High Court in the the law involved in the facts of a case. In the case of CIT v Smt. Appellant's case, the issue of applicability to Godavaridevi Saraf [(1978) deduct TDS on transponder payments to a 113 ITR 589] is foreign company has been decided in distinguishable on facts as Appellant's favour by the Hon'ble Delhi Court to sections of the Act (in case of New Skies Satellite) and Hon'ble involved Calcutta High Court (in case of ATN International). Therefore, the Appellant humbly submits that these favourable decisions by a court higher than the Tribun…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…ch deduction has to be allowed. In the earlier Assessment Year, we have already discussed in the case of Shri Piyush C. Mehta (52 SOT 27) in which the Bench duly considered the decision from Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Godawari Devi Shroff 113 ITR 589 (Bom.) and various other decisions including from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra) and CIT vs Naresh Kumar (supra). No contrary facts were brought to our notice by the Revenue establishing that the deduction has been granted twice to the assessee. Mere claim/allegation is not M/s Crescent Construction Co. enough and…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…ch deduction has to be allowed. In the earlier Assessment Year, we have already discussed in the case of Shri Piyush C. Mehta (52 SOT 27) in which the Bench duly considered the decision from Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Godawari Devi Shroff 113 ITR 589 (Bom.) and various other decisions including from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra) and CIT vs Naresh Kumar (supra). No contrary facts were brought to our notice by the Revenue establishing that the deduction has been granted twice to the assessee. Mere claim/allegation is not M/s Crescent Construction Co. enough and…

Jay Mataji Construction, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3111/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2006-07
Section 40

…efore we have to humbly bow before the views expressed by Hon’ble Courts above. 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 vs. Godavari Devi Saraf ([1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom)] and as analysed by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (Pune)]. 10. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for limited verification on the as…

Girija Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 35 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 283/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhsmt. Girija Singh Ito-35(1)-4, 303, Ebony, Tower No.1, C-12, Bandra The Orchard Residency, 146, Mumbai. Vs. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 Pan: Abgps5477E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54

…ndment is prospective in nature and became effective w.e.f. 01.04.2015. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Shri Mahesh Kumar Poddar (supra), decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v/s Godavaridevi Sarat (113 ITR 589) (Bom) and decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Smt. V.R. Karpagam (ITA No. 301 of 2014) dated 18.08.2014. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue on merit supported the order of authorities below and would argue that amendment made in section 54 for substitution of word “a” by “One” is clarificatory in nature and thus retrospective…

M/S Shalimar Construction, Darjeeling vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No

ITA 2443/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2443/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) M/S Shalimar Construction, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Matigara, Shivmandir, Po:Kadamtala, Siliguri, West Bengal. District : Darjeeling-734011 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawfs 5786 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsian, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri, In Appeal No.03/Cit(A)/Slg/2013-14, Dated 29.05.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 01.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its E-Return Of Income On 14/10/2010, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.12,36,040/-. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S 143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Disallowance On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure Rs.5,98,492 ( Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee Without Debit Balance In The Cash Book) & Disallowed Rs.5,73,950/-( Machine Hire Charges Paid Without Deducting Tds). 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred For 54 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit. After Hearing Ld Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsian, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194

…erefore we have to humbly bow before the views expressed by Hon'ble Courts above, 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 vs. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Born) and as analyzed by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs Aurangabad Holiday Resorts Pvt.Ltd [(2009) 118/TD 1 (Pune)]. 10. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for limited verification on the asp…

Pid P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 7182/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…special Bench in the case of Dalal Broacha Stock Broking P Ltd, apart from being a decision on facts, is superseded by the decisions of the Delhi High Court, cited supra, in the case of AMD Metplast P Ltd and Career Launcher India Ltd. In Godavari Devi Saraf 113 ITR 589, the Bombay High Court pithily observed that the Tribunal, being an all - India body, had to follow law laid down by the High Court of any State. A non - jurisdictional High .Court judgment was also binding on the Tribunal. This principle was followed by the Tribunal in Tej International 69 TTJ (Del) 650, Aurangabad Holiday Resorts 118 ITD 1 (Pun…

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

…of the hierarchical judicial system.' Page 47 of 59 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 CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi 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…

DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata vs. M/S Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…e that in absence of any contrary decision of the high courts, the decision of non-jurisdictional Tribunal & / or Special Bench. [refer Rajamahendri Shipping & Oil Field Services Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (2012) 51 SOT 242 (Vizag & CIT vs.s Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom). On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 11. From the above discussion, we find that order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench for the earlier years was based on the order of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) which ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008 A.Y 03-04 Graphit e India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Rng-11, Kol.…