CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji

214 ITR 154High Court1995#6582 most cited

What is CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji authority for?

A judicial precedent is only authority for what it actually decides and not for propositions that may follow from observations made therein.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji · judicial precedent · authority · ratio decidendi · obiter dicta · binding precedent

Also reported as

84 Taxmann 205

Issues it is cited on

section 115wasection 57(i)section 115bbdsection 2(43)section 4(1)section 115osection 2(45)section 10(33)section 14a(1)section 191section 49treaty benefits

Judgments citing CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji

Smt. Irvind Kaur Gujral, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 5(1)(c)Section 90(3)

…tion, and the coordinate bench was of the view that "at least" for this period, the validity of notification cannot be called into question. As held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [1996] 84 Taxman 205/[1995] 214 ITR 154 (Bom.), a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein". The issue regarding validity of notification after 1st April 2009 was not before the coordinate bench, and these observations thus have no relevance on the proposition being canvassed be…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…company under section 115-O is to be understood to be in behalf of the recipient assessee” cannot be accepted in law. It is only elementary, as was held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [(1995) 214 ITR 154 (Bom)], a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein". The propositions which are assumed by the Court to be correct for the purpose of deciding the same are, according to this judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, lack preceden…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…company under section 115-O is to be understood to be in behalf of the recipient assessee” cannot be accepted in law. It is only elementary, as was held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [(1995) 214 ITR 154 (Bom)], a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein". The propositions which are assumed by the Court to be correct for the purpose of deciding the same are, according to this judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, lack preceden…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 521/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…company under section 115-O is to be understood to be in behalf of the recipient assessee” cannot be accepted in law. It is only elementary, as was held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [(1995) 214 ITR 154 (Bom)], a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein". The propositions which are assumed by the Court to be correct for the purpose of deciding the same are, according to this judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, lack preceden…

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-6, New Delhi

ITA 8968/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…company under section 115-O is to be understood to be in behalf of the recipient assessee” cannot be accepted in law. It is only elementary, as was held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [(1995) 214 ITR 154 (Bom)], a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein". The propositions which are assumed by the Court to be correct for the purpose of deciding the same are, according to this judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, lack preceden…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 8009/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 115

…company under section 115-O is to be understood to be in behalf of the recipient assessee” cannot be accepted in law. It is only elementary, as was held by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [(1995) 214 ITR 154 (Bom)], a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein". The propositions which are assumed by the Court to be correct for the purpose of deciding the same are, according to this judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, lack preceden…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 869/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 90Section 90nSection 91

…to pick out some observations from this judicial precedent and treat the same as complete law declared by the Hon’ble High Court. We may also, at this stage, take note of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [(1995) 214 ITR 154 (Bom)] wherein it is observed that, a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein". In any case, we must always bear in mind the fundamental fact that at best the Wipro decision (supra) can be seen as an authority for full tax credit- somethi…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1767/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
Section 115Section 11JSection 143(3)Section 90Section 90(3)

…tion, and the coordinate bench was of the view that "at least" for this period, the validity of notification cannot be called into question. As held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [1996] 84 Taxman 205/[1995] 214 ITR 154 (Bom.), a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein". The issue regarding validity of notification after 1st April 2009 was not before the coordinate bench, and these observations thus have no relevance on the proposition being canvassed be…

Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, RG- 13 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 155/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…st October 2009 situation, and the coordinate bench was of the view that “at least” for this period, the validity of notification cannot be called into question. As held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [1995] 214 ITR 154 (Bom), a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein”. The issue regarding validity of notification after 1st April 2009 was not before the coordinate bench, and these observations thus have no relevance on the proposition being canvassed bef…

M/S Hype Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 616/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…e issue dealt with by them. Reliance should not be placed on a decision without discussing how the factual situation fits in with the factual situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs Sudhir, 214 ITR 154 (Bom) has observed that a case is an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observation which may find place therein. The Hon’ble High court observed as under: “It is well-settled that the ratio of a decision alone is binding, because a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what…

DCIT, C-I, Ludhiana vs. M/S Kapsons Associates Investments (P) Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1434/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vipin Gupta, CA
Section 14Section 14A

…ment (P) Limited, Ludhiana Reliance should not be placed on a decision without discussing how the factual situation fits in with the factual situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs Sudhir, 214 ITR 154 (Bom) has observed that a case is an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observation which may find place therein. The Hon’ble High court observed as under: “It is well-settled that the ratio of a decision alone is binding, because a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manoj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA
Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ssue dealt with by them. Reliance should not be placed on a decision without discussing how the factual situation fits in with the factual situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs Sudhir, 214 ITR 154 (Bom) has observed that a case is an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observation which may find place therein. The Hon’ble High court observed as under: “It is well-settled that the ratio of a decision alone is binding, because a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not w…

Vaibhav Deepak Shah, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4328/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1st New CGO Building, Prathistha floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 PAN No. BBGPS2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri…

Vaibhav Deepak Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1st New CGO Building, Prathistha floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 PAN No. BBGPS2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav D Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4408/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1st New CGO Building, Prathistha floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 PAN No. BBGPS2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav D Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4407/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1st New CGO Building, Prathistha floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 PAN No. BBGPS2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri…

Marico Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 9(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8858/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 254(1)

…. A judicial precedent cannot be an authority for dealing with a question which has not even come up for consideration in that case. It is only elementary that, as was also held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudhir layantiIal Mulji [1995] 214 ITR 154/[1996] 84 Taxman 205, that a judicial precedent is an authority for what it actually decides and not what may what come to follow from some observations made therein. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CITv. Sun Engg Works {P} Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297/64 Taxman 442 a " judgement must be read as a whole and the observations from th…