What is CIT v. Sunil Kumar authority for?

The decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding on Income Tax Authorities and the Tribunal within its jurisdiction. Contrary decisions from other High Courts are not relevant, and a point decided by the jurisdictional High Court can no longer be considered a debatable issue.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Sunil Kumar?

112 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sunil Kumar (212 ITR 238), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sunil Kumar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 147, Section 148, Section 68.

CIT v. Sunil Kumar (212 ITR 238)

Income Tax Officer- 22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Arvind Premchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2878/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…is contemplated on the issues recorded prior to issue of notice u/s. 148 of the CO No. 136/Mum/2025 Arvind Premchand Jain, Mumbai. Act is a legal issue on which the High Courts have rendered contradictory judgments. In the case of CIT -vs.- Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.) and Subramaniam -vs.- Siemens India Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom.) the courts, expounding the law of precedence, held that the decision of jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Income tax Authorities and the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Court and the contrary decision of another High Court is not relevant. Therefore, follow…

M/S Mafatlal Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…ervision should conform to the law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working; otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer," (ii) CIT v. Sunil Kumar (1995) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.), it was observed as under: "The point which has been raised could have been considered to be debatable because other High Courts have taken a different view. But since the view taken by this court is binding on the Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the…

Priyanshu Boiragi, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Priyanshu Boiragi Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati 16, Prasanti Path, Basistha Vs. Road, Survey Guwahati, Assam- 781028. Pan: Aiapb 4499 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Both The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac As Well As Ld. J.A.O. Are Not Justified In Confirming/Rejecting The Petition Filed U/S. 154 Of I.T. Act 1961 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80(Ie) In Respect Of Vat Remission Claimed As Revenue Receipt In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ii. For That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Not Justified Also In Not Considering The Cbdt Circular No. 39/2016 (F. No.279/Misc/140/2015/Itj Dated 29.11.2016 & No. 68 (F. No.245/17/71-A & Pac) Dated 17.11.1971 As Submitted By The Appellant Online Firstly On 16.01.2016 & Secondly On 05.10.2021 Vide Annexures - 5 & 6 In The Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021 While Passing The Appellate Order U/S. 250 Of I.T. Act 1961 Iii. For That The Ld. A.O. Has Not Considered In Right Perspective Rectification Petition Dated 21.04.2016, 09.04.2019 16.03.2020 Submitted Online Vide Annexure - 3 Of Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021. 2 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 Iv. For That The Other Grounds Of Law As Well As Of Facts, The Appellant May Be Allowed To Raise On Or Before The Hearing Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80

…dered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts on this issue by citing as follows: “CIT vs Meghalaya Steel Limited in Civil Appeal No. 7622/2014 (2016) 132 DTR (SC) 273 & Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Rajasthan)” And prayed that the instant appeal may be allowed in view of the above decision in favour of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order passed by the authorities below. He further stated that the present issue involved in the appeal is a purely legal issue which assessee may have to be raised before ld. CIT(A) by…

M/S. Nagesh Consultants, Bangalore vs. DCIT, (CPC)-TDS, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

…ion he is functioning. The Court further added that in cases where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the ITO must take the view which is in favour of the assessee and not against him. In CIT - vs.- Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.) it was held that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Income tax Authorities and the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Court and the contrary decision of another High Court is not relevant, and that a point decided by the Jurisdictional High Court can no longer be considered to be a debatable issue. In Bara…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…s functioning and in the case where there is conflict of views between different High Courts, AO must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is functioning. The Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.) has further held held that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Income tax Authorities and the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Court and the contrary decision of another High Court is not relevant, and that a point decided by the Jurisdictional High Court can no longer be considered to be a debatable issu…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…s functioning and in the case where there is conflict of views between different High Courts, AO must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is functioning. The Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.) has further held held that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Income tax Authorities and the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Court and the contrary decision of another High Court is not relevant, and that a point decided by the Jurisdictional High Court can no longer be considered to be a debatable issu…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…s functioning and in the case where there is conflict of views between different High Courts, AO must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is functioning. The Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.) has further held held that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Income tax Authorities and the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Court and the contrary decision of another High Court is not relevant, and that a point decided by the Jurisdictional High Court can no longer be considered to be a debatable issu…

Sana Shah, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1702/DEL/2022[2018=-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasana Shah, Vs. Ito, 744-745, Model Town, Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bopps2855R

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi S. Mann, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 28Section 5Section 54(4)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…ssee. However, in the case where there is conflict of views between different High Courts, ITO must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is functioning. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Sunil Kumar (1996) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.) held that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Income tax Authorities and the Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Court and the contrary decision of another High Court is not relevant, and that a point decided by the Jurisdictional High Court can no longer be considered to be a debatable issue. Then in the ca…

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

…wn by it. Such obedience would IT(TP)A No.2243/Bang/2019 Page 21 of 24 also be conducive to their smooth working; otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer," (ii) CIT v. Sunil Kumar (1995) 212 ITR 238 (Raj.), it was observed as under: "The point which has been raised could have been considered to be debatable because other High Courts have taken a different view. But since the view taken by this court is binding on the Tribunal and other authorities under the Act in this State, it could not be considered to be a debatable point in view of the…