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

110 ITR 453High Court1977#1824 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 366,005 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

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Vels Institute of Science & Advanced Studies, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3549/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Vels Institute of Science & Advanced Studies, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3548/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

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…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Vels Institute of Science & Advanced Studies, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3547/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

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…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 213/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…al in the impugned issue before us. Therefore respectfully following the same we delete the addition made the AO. 173.3 We also place our reliance on 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.). The relevant extract has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. In the light of the ratio decide in the above-said judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the view adopted by the co-ordinate bench as discussed above shall be applied in the case on hand with full strength. The ld. DR and the ld. AR has not brought any decision…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 954/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…al in the impugned issue before us. Therefore respectfully following the same we delete the addition made the AO. 173.3 We also place our reliance on 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.). The relevant extract has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. In the light of the ratio decide in the above-said judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the view adopted by the co-ordinate bench as discussed above shall be applied in the case on hand with full strength. The ld. DR and the ld. AR has not brought any decision…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2), Hyderabad vs. Elgen (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income-tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN – AAACE 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee by: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date of hearing: 15/03/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/04/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is directed against CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad’s order dated 2…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. ( Erstwhile Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited), Baroda vs. The ACIT, Cent.Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 702/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…w the same. We cannot change the stand with the view taken by the ITAT in the own case of the assessee. Regarding this we find support & guidance from 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 ca…

Ugc Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2155/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…a assessee qua assessment year. The Ld. AR further relied upon the decisions which are as under:- a) Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. v. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) wherein reference was made for similar view taken in CIT vs. L.G. Ramamurthi 110 ITR 453 (Mad ). b) Union of India vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd 1991 AIR 696 SC. c) MP High Court in Agarwal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd v. CIT 257 ITR 235 (MP) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in UOI v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd AIR 1992 SC 711, 712 d) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT 165 Taxmann 307 (SC) e) CIT vs. Goodlas Ne…

Usg Buildwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…a assessee qua assessment year. The Ld. AR further relied upon the decisions which are as under:- a) Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. v. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) wherein reference was made for similar view taken in CIT vs. L.G. Ramamurthi 110 ITR 453 (Mad ). b) Union of India vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd 1991 AIR 696 SC. c) MP High Court in Agarwal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd v. CIT 257 ITR 235 (MP) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in UOI v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd AIR 1992 SC 711, 712 d) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT 165 Taxmann 307 (SC) e) CIT vs. Goodlas Ne…

ITO, Ward - 2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2163/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 133Section 143(3)

…rse, if it had been arrived at after due inquiry, if no fresh facts are placed before the Tribunal giving the later decision and if the Tribunal giving the earlier decision has taken into consideration all material evidence." In CIT vs. L. G. Ramamurthy (1977)110 ITR 453 (Mad.), the court laid down the principle that "But what is relevant is not the personality of officers presiding M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Assessment Year:2009-10 over the Tribunal but the Tribunal as an institution. If it is conceded that simply because of the change in the personnel who manned the Tribunal, it is open to them to a con…

Popular Estate Management Ltd., (Previously Known As Pioneer Technopark Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2703/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The Dcit बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously Known As Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar Sg Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Subhas Bain Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Subhas Bain CIT-DR
Section 6Section 68

…ction 255 (3) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') to constitute a Special Bench to resolve the controversy.” 9.15. We also find support and Guidance from 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 c…

The ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Jagdishchandra B. Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2166/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2166/Ahd/2016 With C.O.159/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 I.T.O, Shri Jagdishchandra B. Patel, Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. 4A, Ketan Society, Ahmedabad. Nr. Sardar Patel Colony, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad. Pan: Afupp4222L

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &
Section 48

…T in its own case of the assessee in the earlier A.Y. 2009-10 in the identical facts and circumstances. Regarding this we find support & guidance from 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 With C.O. No.159/Ahd/2016 Asstt. Year 2010-11 9 facts. It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion w…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2514/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Sparc, Tandalja, Tax, Central Circle – 2, Vadodara – 390 020. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Annex, Race Course Circle Baroda – 390 007. [Pan No. Aadcs 3124 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Ltd., SPARC, Tandalja, Tax, Central Circle – 2, Vadodara – 390 020. 2nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Annex, Race Course Circle Baroda – 390 007. [PAN No. AADCS 3124 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, & Shri Parin Shah A.Rs. Respondent by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 07/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal f…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…ort & guidance from the IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 ca…

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…ort & guidance from the IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 ca…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT, Central Circle-2, Baroda

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1417/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Sparc, Tandalja, Tax, Central Circle – 2, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vadodara – 390 020. Annex, Race Course Circle Baroda – 390 007. [Pan No. Aadcs 3124 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 35

…g on record contrary to the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the finding of the Ld. CIT-A. 38.1 We also place our reliance on 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.). The relevant extract has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. In the light of the ratio decidendi in the above-said judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the view adopted by the co- ordinate bench as discussed above shall be applied in the case on hand with full strength. The ld. DR and the ld. AR has not brought any deci…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…11.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore we are bound to follow the same in view of 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 ca…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nabros Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 788/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…11.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore we are bound to follow the same in view of 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 ca…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…11.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore we are bound to follow the same in view of 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 ca…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), (Tpo), Baroda

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…11.1 As the facts in the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore we are bound to follow the same in view of 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.) wherein it was held as under: "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 ca…