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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Godavari Devi Saraf

Teva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Industries India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4197/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalteva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Vs Assessment Unit, Income Industries India Private Limited, Tax Department/Deputy 8Th Floor, C-Wing Time Square, Commissioner Of Income Andherikurla Road, Marol Naka, Tax, Circle 25(1), Opp Mittal Industrial Estate C. R. Building, Delhi- Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059, 110001 Maharashtra, India Pan: Bnspk7225H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, Sh. Sohamdua, Adv& Sh. Abhiudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153r

…appellant- company. The said appeal, therefore, fails and is liable to be dismissed.” 20 Teva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 12. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Smt. Godavari Devi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589, observed that Income Tax Act is an all India statute and until a contrary decision given by any other competent High Court, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is binding on the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay is as under: – 9 ......It should not be overlooked that the Income-tax Act is…

Srikanth Kakati, Kothagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kothagudem

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1341/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1341/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Srikanth Kakati, The Income Tax Officer, Kothagudem–507 Ward-1, Vs. 101. Khammam. Kothagudem. Telangana. Pin –507 101. Pan Csupk1347N Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ms Ml Niharika, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: MS ML Niharika, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 148Section 69Section 69A

…hat the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] 12 [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) 13 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 14 [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) “6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue…

Bandaru Chandra Sekhar, Kadapa vs. ITO, Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1716/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1716/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2019-2020 Bandaru Chandra The Income Tax Officer, Sekhar, Ward-1, Proddutur. Jammalamadugu Po & Vs. Pin – 516 350. Taluka, Kadapa Dist. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 516 434. Pan Aozpb5357G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca K A Sai Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: MS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148

…hat the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] 12 [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) 13 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 14 [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) “6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue…

Arkay Energy (Rameswarm) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1562/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1562/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Arkay Energy (Rameswarm) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aafca0044C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2025 Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

…the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. 11 [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] 12 [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) 13 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 14 [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue…