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

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 725/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: MS. Deepa Hiray (Addl. CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…e of law, the decisions of Hon'ble non- jurisdictional High Court are followed by the lower authorities on account of the persuasive effect of these decisions and on account of the concept of judicial propriety. In the case of CIT v. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom.), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court took note of a nonjurisdictional High Court and held that the Tribunal, outside the jurisdiction of that Hon'ble High Court and in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision to the contrary, could not be faulted for following the same. Their Lordships observed that, "It should not be overlooked t…

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sabarmati Capital One Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 3687/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna - AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(4)Section 23(5)Section 24Section 263

…trongly supported the findings of the AO and placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom.). 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is true that provisions of Section 23(5) of the Act are effective from 01/04/2018 whereby notional annual value of property/part of the property held as stock-in-trade has been brought to tax subject to conditions specified in that Section. The amendmen…

Sabarmati Capital One Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ward-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3633/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(4)Section 23(5)Section 24Section 263

…trongly supported the findings of the AO and placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom.). 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is true that provisions of Section 23(5) of the Act are effective from 01/04/2018 whereby notional annual value of property/part of the property held as stock-in-trade has been brought to tax subject to conditions specified in that Section. The amendmen…

Qubix Business Park Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1994/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

…on’ble Jurisdictional High Court on the impugned issue. The ld.Counsel has also not brought to our notice any decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on the impugned issue. 8.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf Vs CIT, 113 ITR 589(Bom) has held as under : Quote , “ Until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. When the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty it did not g…

Nilesh Popatlal Gada, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…available on the said issue then decision of Non- Jurisdictional High Court is a binding precedence, as observed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following case : 9.5 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf Vs CIT, 113 ITR 589(Bom) has held as under : Quote, “ Until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to 16 proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land. When the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty it did not…

M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt. Limited, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Altrade Minerals Pvt /s. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner of of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. PAN/GIR No. No.AAFCA…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…authority like a Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that question - CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589, 592 (Bom.); CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal & Co. [1981] 127 ITR 513, 515 (MP); All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers Union v. Union of India [1984] 150 ITR 1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…authority like a Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that question - CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589, 592 (Bom.); CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal & Co. [1981] 127 ITR 513, 515 (MP); All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers Union v. Union of India [1984] 150 ITR 1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.…

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…authority like a Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that question - CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589, 592 (Bom.); CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal & Co. [1981] 127 ITR 513, 515 (MP); All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers Union v. Union of India [1984] 150 ITR 1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.…

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…authority like a Tribunal acting anywhere in the country has to respect the law laid down by the High Court, though of a different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that question - CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589, 592 (Bom.); CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal & Co. [1981] 127 ITR 513, 515 (MP); All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers Union v. Union of India [1984] 150 ITR 1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-5, Pune vs. Renu Electronics Private Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.353/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant V Renu Electronics Private Commissioner Of S Limited, S.No.2/6, Near Baner Income Tax, Circle-5, Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaacr8741G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.18/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant V Renu Electronics Private Commissioner Of S Limited, S.No.2/6, Near Baner Income Tax, Circle-5, Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaacr8741G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Ita No.353/Pun/2024 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection C.O. No.18/Pun/2024 Filed By The

Section 10ASection 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

…High Court held that Circular No.09/2024 is applicable to all the pending appeals, therefore, the exceptions clauses mentioned in Circular No.05/2024 have retrospective effect. 6.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf Vs. CIT, 113 ITR 589(Bom) has held as under : Quote , “ Until contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of the land.” Unquote. ITA No.353/PUN/2024 & C.O. No.18/PUN/2024 6.4 The…

Jakraya Multi State Co-Operative Credit Soceity Limited, Solapur vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 1423/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1423/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…19 8. On the other hand, the Revenue could place no contrary decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, without multiplying judicial precedents on the aforestated issue in view of the ratio laid down in ‘Smt. Godavari devi Saraf Vs CIT’ [1978, 113 ITR 589(Bom)] we adjudicate the issue in favour of assessee following the decision of non-jurisdictional High Court laid in ‘Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd.’ (supra) by holding that, the interest income earned by the appellant from its investment held with co-operative & other banks qualifies for deductions u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act since arisen i…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sheriar Phirojsha Irani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisandwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

…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 it permissible to rely upon the earlier decisions of this Tribunal even if one of them is by a Special Bench. It will be wholly inappropriate to choose views of one of the High Courts based on our perceptions about reasonableness of the respective viewpoints as such an exercise will de facto amount to sitting…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 62Section 801ASection 80I

…nding on the Tribunal, it should respect the law laid down by another High Court." It has been stated, inter alia, by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench that: "Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589, wherein it was held that Page 16 of 23 I.T.A. No.: 473/KOL/2018 C.O. No.: 65/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Graphite India Ltd. unless a contrary decision is given by a competent High Court which is binding on the Tribunal in Bombay, it should respect the law laid down by another High Court. It observed as under: It should not be overlo…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Midtown Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…of law, the decisions of Hon’ble non jurisdictional High Court are followed by the lower authorities on account of the persuasive effect of these decisions and on account of the concept of judicial propriety. In the case of CIT Vs Godavari Devi Saraf [(1979) 113 ITR 589 (Bom)], Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court took note of a non jurisdictional High Court and held that the Tribunal, outside the jurisdiction of that Hon’ble High Court and in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision to the contrary, could not be faulted for following the same. Their Lordships observed that, “It should not be overlooked…

Dlf Midtown P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…of law, the decisions of Hon’ble non jurisdictional High Court are followed by the lower authorities on account of the persuasive effect of these decisions and on account of the concept of judicial propriety. In the case of CIT Vs Godavari Devi Saraf [(1979) 113 ITR 589 (Bom)], Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court took note of a non jurisdictional High Court and held that the Tribunal, outside the jurisdiction of that Hon’ble High Court and in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision to the contrary, could not be faulted for following the same. Their Lordships observed that, “It should not be overlooked…

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Vishwakarmasarkshankamgarsahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 451/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2017-18 &2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Vishwakarma Sarkshan Pune. S Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection Nos.23 & 24/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishwakarma Sarkshan V The Income Tax Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha S Officer, Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Pune. Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals For Two Separate Assessment Years I.E.2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Two Separate Orders Of

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…llow the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA Nos.450 & 451/PUN/2024 and C.O.Nos.23 & 24/PUN/2024 Vishwakarma Sarkshan Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit the case of Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf Vs. CIT, 113 ITR 589(Bom) has held that in the absence of any contrary decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, decision of Non-Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribunal. 6.4 Therefore, respectfully following the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court(supra), we hold that assessee is eligible for deduction u/sec.80…

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Vishwakarma Sarkshan Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 450/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2017-18 &2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Vishwakarma Sarkshan Pune. S Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection Nos.23 & 24/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.450 & 451/Pun/2024) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishwakarma Sarkshan V The Income Tax Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha S Officer, Maryadit, 185, Vishwakarma Pune. Bhuwan, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaajv0492M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals For Two Separate Assessment Years I.E.2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Two Separate Orders Of

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…llow the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA Nos.450 & 451/PUN/2024 and C.O.Nos.23 & 24/PUN/2024 Vishwakarma Sarkshan Kamgar Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit the case of Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf Vs. CIT, 113 ITR 589(Bom) has held that in the absence of any contrary decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, decision of Non-Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribunal. 6.4 Therefore, respectfully following the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court(supra), we hold that assessee is eligible for deduction u/sec.80…

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 368/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, 254, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ……………. Appellant PAN – AAQPN4090H v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, ……………. Respondent (OSD), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri M.G.Moryani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 27/06/2024 Date of Order – 27/06/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 18/10/…

ITO (It) TDS-2, Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…e same is binding on us, instead of the decisions of the other Hon’ble High Courts relied upon by the learned DR. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the learned DR on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf, [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom.) is also misplaced. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Bansilal B. Raisoni & Sons (supra), we find no merits in the aforesaid submission of the learned DR. 24. The reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in N.Rajgopal v/s Addl. CIT, in IT…