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

K.Thanikachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2628/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

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…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee's appeal as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…ofar as the assessee-company is concerned. 9.4. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal we cannot do better than reiterate what Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT vs. L.G. Ramamurthi & Ors. 1977 CTR (Mad) 416 : (1977) 110 ITR 453 (Mad) : TC 8R.129: "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…