CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416

110 ITR 453High Court1977#1843 most cited

What is CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 authority for?

An Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot reach a conclusion contrary to an earlier decision by another bench of the same Tribunal on identical facts, as the Tribunal acts as a consistent institution regardless of changes in its members.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi · 110 ITR 453 · Tribunal prior decision binding · identical facts · institutional consistency · section 143(3) · section 147 · subsequent assessment years · res judicata Tribunal · stare decisis ITAT

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 120(3)Section 127Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 115osection 198cost plus methodsection 256(1)interest u/s 234csection 256management feessection 2(31)domestic companyddtsection 38annual letting value

Judgments citing CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416

SHRIRAM FIANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2635/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2635/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Finance Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Since Shriram City Union Finance Vs. Of Income Tax, Limited Amalgamated With Corporate Circle 3(1), Shriram Transport Finance Co. Chennai. Ltd. & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Ltd.,) Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…vour of the assessee. When the Tribunal decided the case in favour of the assessee on identical facts, it is not proper for the Tribunal to take a different view for the subsequent years. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramamurthi (L.G.), [1977] 110 ITR 453, it is held as follows: “No Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts. It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion were different from the members who decided the case on the pre…

SANJEEV KUMAR SAXENA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(4), LUCKNOW -NEW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ACIT vs. Anima Investment Ltd. [2000] 73 ITD 125 (Delhi)(TM) (9) Order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Suresh C. Mehta vs. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. No.33/Mum/2011 (10) Judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. L. G. Ramamurthy [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Madras) (11) Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2002] 121 Taxman 43 (Gujarat) (12) Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer [2024] 162 taxmann.com 201 (Gujarat) (13) Order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 150/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 149/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 148/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 137/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 136/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 135/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 134/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 133/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

…urposes." 16.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore the same is binding on us as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi 1977 CTR (Mad.) 416 : [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad.) which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 16.2 In view of the above and the precedent in the own case of the assessee as discussed above, we restore both the issue, i.e.. adjustment in the DTA segment and the royalty payment to the file of Ld.CIT (A) for fresh adjudication and in the light of above discussion as per the provisi…

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144CSection 92C

…ly settled in the earlier years. There being no change in fact or law it was imperative for the TPO to follow the same method of computation as done earlier. Not doing so amounts to violation of law as explained by Hon’ble Madras High Court in L.G. Ramamurthi 110 ITR 453. Relevant portion extracted hereunder: IT(TP)A No.291/Bang/2022 Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 64 ‘’Appeal(Tribunal)—Precedent—Tribunal coming to conclusion that gifts were sham—In subsequent assessment year a differently constituted Tribunal came to a different conclusion, viz., gifts were real Tribunals is not right in tak…

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 92C

…ly settled in the earlier years. There being no change in fact or law it was imperative for the TPO to follow the same method of computation as done earlier. Not doing so amounts to violation of law as explained by Hon’ble Madras High Court in L.G. Ramamurthi 110 ITR 453. Relevant portion extracted hereunder: Page 29 of 65 IT(TP)A No.285/Bang/2021 M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ‘’Appeal(Tribunal)—Precedent—Tribunal coming to conclusion that gifts were sham—In subsequent assessment year a differently constituted Tribunal came to a different conclusion, viz., gifts were real Tribunals is not right…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) , MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4082/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

…s' purpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we cannot do better than reiterate what the Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi [1977]110 ITR 453 : "No Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts. It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion were different from the members who decided the case on the present occasion. But wha…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) , MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4073/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

…s' purpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we cannot do better than reiterate what the Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi [1977]110 ITR 453 : "No Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts. It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion were different from the members who decided the case on the present occasion. But wha…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) , MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4072/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

…s' purpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we cannot do better than reiterate what the Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi [1977]110 ITR 453 : "No Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts. It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion were different from the members who decided the case on the present occasion. But wha…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) , MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

…s' purpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we cannot do better than reiterate what the Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi [1977]110 ITR 453 : "No Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts. It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion were different from the members who decided the case on the present occasion. But wha…

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…ly settled in the earlier years. There being no change in fact or law it was imperative for the TPO to follow the same method of computation as done earlier. Not doing so amounts to violation of law as explained by Hon’ble Madras High Court in L.G. Ramamurthi 110 ITR 453. Relevant portion extracted hereunder: ‘’Appeal(Tribunal)—Precedent—Tribunal coming to conclusion that gifts were sham—In subsequent assessment year a differently constituted Tribunal came to a different conclusion, viz., gifts were real Tribunals is not right in taking an altogether different view in later year on same set of facts when there w…

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…ly settled in the earlier years. There being no change in fact or law it was imperative for the TPO to follow the same method of computation as done earlier. Not doing so amounts to violation of law as explained by Hon’ble Madras High Court in L.G. Ramamurthi 110 ITR 453. Relevant portion extracted hereunder: ‘’Appeal(Tribunal)—Precedent—Tribunal coming to conclusion that gifts were sham—In subsequent assessment year a differently constituted Tribunal came to a different conclusion, viz., gifts were real Tribunals is not right in taking an altogether different view in later year on same set of facts when there w…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3550/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 to 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Vels Institute of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology and Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. PAN: AAATV 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mrs. Ann L. Kabathuama, CIT अ…

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4