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

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

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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 CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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…

Smt. Alkaben M. Rachh, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 538/RJT/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.538/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 Smt. Alkaben Mukeshbhai Rachchh, I.T.O, B.B. House, Vs. Ward-1(2), 5- College Wadi, Rajkot. Kathiyawad Gymkhana, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…10.1 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…

Mukeshbhai G. Rachh, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/RJT/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.538/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 Smt. Alkaben Mukeshbhai Rachchh, I.T.O, B.B. House, Vs. Ward-1(2), 5- College Wadi, Rajkot. Kathiyawad Gymkhana, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…10.1 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…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…e ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 13.3 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.) 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 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…e ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 13.3 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.) 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 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…e ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 13.3 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.) 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 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…e ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 13.3 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.) 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…

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5524/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. 9.4 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…

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5523/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. 9.4 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…

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5522/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. 9.4 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…

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

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2266/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Height Insurance Ward-2(3), R/No.10/21, Services Ltd., Room 7Th Floor, Aayakar No.319,3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Kamalaya Centre, 156A, Chowringhee Square, Lenin Sarani, Kolakta-13 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacch 0943 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2016 In Case No. 188/Cit(A)-14/Wd-1(1)/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Solitary Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive Section 37 R.W 40(A)(Ia) Disallowances / Addition Of ₹66,18,00,000/- Pertaining To Assessee’S Service Charges Paid To M/S Golden Trust Financial Services (Gtfs) Hereafter For Having Acted As Its Agent. It’S Next Two Averments Are That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Examining Assessee’S Exclusive Method Of Accounting In Service Tax Receivable On Output Services As Against Inclusive Method Of Service Tax

Section 143(3)Section 37

…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 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 conclusion totally contradictory to the conclusion which had b…

ITO, Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai vs. Murasoli Maran Family Trust, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 2272/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Devanathan,Advocate
Section 147Section 161Section 167Section 47

…ecision of the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the decision is having binding effect on this assessment year also and it has to be followed in true letter and spirit. Further, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. L. G. RAMAMURTHI in [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad) wherein held that:- “in the absence of any fresh material, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to an entirely different and contrary conclusion on the same set of facts.” ITA Nos. 2271 & 2272/Mds/2017 8 Further, once again, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT in [2006] 284 ITR 93 (Mad) wherei…

ITO, Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai vs. Murasoli Maran Family Trust, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 2271/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Devanathan,Advocate
Section 147Section 161Section 167Section 47

…ecision of the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the decision is having binding effect on this assessment year also and it has to be followed in true letter and spirit. Further, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. L. G. RAMAMURTHI in [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad) wherein held that:- “in the absence of any fresh material, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to an entirely different and contrary conclusion on the same set of facts.” ITA Nos. 2271 & 2272/Mds/2017 8 Further, once again, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT in [2006] 284 ITR 93 (Mad) wherei…

M/S. Sabari Enterprises, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.N.Madhavan,, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: 15.11.2017

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, B/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2173/Mds./2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08 ) M/s.Sabari Enterprises, The Income Tax officer , Vs. 22 (Old No.45) Bishop Garden Business ward 11(4), Greenways road, Mandaveli, Chennai. Chennai 600 028. PAN AANFS 2667 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.G.Baskar,Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Mr.N.Madhavan,, ACIT, D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : 15.11.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 05.…

Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6303/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. S. Rastogi, A. RFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT [DR]
Section 153C

…before the President of the Tribunal so that he could have the case referred to a full bench of the Tribunal consisting of three or more members for which there is a provision in the Act. Reference was made to the similar view taken in CIT vs. L.G. Ramamurthi 110 ITR 453 (Mad.). Reference was also made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. 1991 AIR 696, where it was held :- “ It is true that a Bench of two members must not lightly disregard the decision of another Bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. -------------------------------. The rationa…

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

In the result, ITA No.2858/Mds

ITA 2858/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(3)

…of appeal before this Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 28.10.2015 taking the consistent view on the facts of the case and by placing reliance on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. L. G. Ramamurthi in [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad) wherein held that Tribunal is not right in taking altogether different view in later year on same set of facts, when there is no fresh material brought before it, we are inclined to decide the issue in favour of assessee by holding that there is no violation of provisions of the section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the Act and the as…

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

In the result, ITA No.2858/Mds

ITA 2857/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(3)

…of appeal before this Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 28.10.2015 taking the consistent view on the facts of the case and by placing reliance on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. L. G. Ramamurthi in [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad) wherein held that Tribunal is not right in taking altogether different view in later year on same set of facts, when there is no fresh material brought before it, we are inclined to decide the issue in favour of assessee by holding that there is no violation of provisions of the section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the Act and the as…

M/S. Aztecsoft (Now Merged With Mindtree Ltd), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1434/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Chytanya K. K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Preethi Garg, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 144CSection 92C

…ment as is required in terms of Rule 10B(2). 20. The Learned Authorities below erred in not following his own order rendered for the previous year i.e., AY 2005-06 when the issues involved re similar, thereby ignoring the decision of the Madras High Court in 110 ITR 453. 21. The Learned Authorities below erred in reducing telecommunication expenses of Rs.1,27,00,473/- from the export turnover and thereby reducing claim made u/s 10A of the Act. 22. Without prejudice, the learned Authorities below, while computing the deduction under Section 10A of the Act, erred in not excluding the above amount from the express…

K.Thanikachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2629/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…:-7-: I.T.A. Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 Resjidicata does not apply to the Income tax proceedings, the Rule of consistency does apply to the income tax proceedings. This view is up held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High court 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 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 conclusion totally contradictory to the conclusion which ha…