CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5

288 ITR 322Supreme Court of India2007#645 most cited

What is CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5 authority for?

The Supreme Court affirmed that lower authorities are bound by decisions of higher authorities due to judicial discipline. It also clarified that the Commissioner, in exercising revisional power under Section 263, can conduct necessary inquiries to determine if an assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue.

153

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. · 288 ITR 322 (SC) · Section 263 revision power · Commissioner inquiry power · assessment prejudicial to revenue · judicial discipline principle · binding precedent · lower authority must follow higher authority · Section 143(3) assessment · scrutiny assessment inquiry

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 10Section 12A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

personbusinesscompanytotal incomeinterestdocumentindiasection 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5

Income Tax Officer Ward-30(3), Kolkata vs. Sanjeev Kejriwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2190/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2190/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-30(3), Kolkata -Vs- Sanjeev Kejriwal [Pan: Aevpk 7424 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ev Kejriwal A.Yr. 2008-09 junior incumbent is supposed to obey and carry out the order and / or observations 'made by the superior authority, be it judicial forum or a quasi-judicial forum or even in any administration field. In CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. (288 ITR 322 SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. Therefore, I hold that the Assessing Officer should not deviate from the earlier decision of the Hon 'ble Tribunal in the case of the appellant for application of th…

Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Godara[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Cit, Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kol-8, 54/1, Rafi C/O-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 86, Ahmed Kidwai Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata-700016. Pan-Aaaaa2455 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 Order

Section 143Section 143(1)(e)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

M/S Rassco Steels Ltd., Kolkata vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 904/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ustainable. Anything short of that would not 10 M/s Rassco Steels Ltd. A.Y.2012-13 clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 816/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Hqrs.-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 263(1)

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. 12 I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Castron Technologies Ltd (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has t…

Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/KOL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017
Section 11Section 11aSection 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011
Section 11Section 11aSection 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1254/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…e order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There is…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5407/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

…m bound by judicial discipline as held by a catena of judicial decisions. There is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Decisions in Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (1991) 55 ELT 433 (SC); CIT vs. Ralsons Industries Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 322 (SC); Triveni Chemicals v UOI (2007) 2SCC 503 (SC); Nokia Corporation v DC IT (International Taxation) (2007) 292 ITR 22 (Delhi) may be referred. While on the issue, I am also aware that when two High Courts have given different opinions not being jurisdictional High Court- the one favoring the assessee has to 7 be followed as held in CIT vs. Veg…

M/S. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on transfer

ITA 882/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: S/Shri S.D. Kalipa, R.R.Maurya, Praveen SharmaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR, Subhakant Sahoo, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92

…g for leases, followed by the assessee. " iii) The action of the Ld. DRP is illegal in not following the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 without distinguishing it on facts. As held by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in C1T Vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. (288 ITR 322), "where an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of natural justice”. It is significant to note the DRP's order dt. 26.11.2013 is appealable u/s 253(1)(d) of the Act and was not binding on the Department. iv) Holds Supreme Court decision in Woodward Governor is not applicable.…