How many judgments cite Fiber Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Bangalore?

20 judgments on BharatTax cite Fiber Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Bangalore (376 ITR 596), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Fiber Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Bangalore come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 92BA(i), Section 92CA(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144C.

Fiber Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Bangalore

376 ITR 596Supreme Court of India2015#5781 most cited

What is Fiber Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Bangalore authority for?

Decisions of a larger bench of the Supreme Court are binding on benches of lesser or equal strength, and decisions of a smaller bench can be considered obiter dicta if they are in conflict with larger bench decisions.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Fiber Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Bangalore · 376 ITR 596 · Supreme Court · binding precedent · obiter dicta · larger bench · lesser bench · ratio decidendi · Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 92BA(i)Section 92CA(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C Section 253(2A)Section 115JB(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 92ba specified domestic transaction section 92b section 92ca(3)section 246a transfer pricing adjustment assessee in default section 119 profits and gains of business or profession section 92ca section 253 section 29

Judgments citing Fiber Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Bangalore

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore

ITA 2348/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250

…le to be ignored. 13.15 The assessee also relied on the Constitutional Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra 254 ELT 196 (SC) for the proposition that the decision in Fibre Boards P. Ltd in 376 ITR 596 is not binding precedent. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra 254 ELT 196 (SC), it has held as under (Para 12). “12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would l…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…e to be ignored. 13.15 The assessee also relied on the Constitutional Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra 254 ELT 196 (SC) for the proposition that the decision in Fibre Boards P. Ltd in 376 ITR 596 is not binding precedent. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra 254 ELT 196 (SC), it has held as under (Para 12). “12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would…

Nilima Kothari, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Asstt. Centre, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 259/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…of Section 149. Pursuant to the substitution of the old provisions of Section 149 with the enactment of FA 2021, the said Notifications cannot survive. [See Municipal Council Palai v. T. J. Joseph, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 55; Fibre Boards Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT, (2015) 376 ITR 596 (SC) and CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd, 237 ITR 174 (SC)] (xi) With the enactment of FA 2021, the erstwhile provisions of Section 149(1) were repealed and were substituted by a new provision. The immediate impact of the substitution was, while the limitation prescribed under Clause (a) of the erstwhile Section 149(1) was reduced from f…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Midtown Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…ndustries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) have settled the law that the relevant provisions in the Act out to be put to stricter interpretation only. Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Fiber Boards Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT Bangalore in 62 taxmann.com 135/376 ITR 596(SC). Hon’ble Supreme Court, after duly considering all the decision, came to a conclusion that the ratio of the decisions in Rayala Corporation, Kolhapur Canesugar etc cannot be said to be ratio decidendi at all and it is really in nature of obiter dicta. It has also been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that these decisions don't have binding effect.…

Dlf Midtown P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ection 144B. The learned Additional Solicitor General, to support this contention relies upon Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fibre Boards (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[2015] 10 SCC 333/[2015] 62 taxmann.com 135/376 ITR 596. 15. Sri A. Shankar in rejoinder rebuts the canvass on the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 20-9-2022 [Annexure- A1] contending that the petitioner does not challenge the jurisdiction of the first respondent to pass the impugned order because the petitioner's case before this Court is in the premise that…

Panacea Boitec Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT National Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aaacp5335J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 92BSection 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 PAN AAACP5335J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocate Department by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing: 09.05.2024 Date of 22.05.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM The appeal is against Lear…

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)

…ion, whether repealed or modified, is inconsistent with the corresponding new statutory provisions, that such an notification ceases to hold good in law. In a rather recent judgment in the case of Fibre Boards (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 135/[2017] 376 ITR 596 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle, and, inter alia, observed as follows: 34. In CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd . [1999] 237 ITR 174/103 Taxman 503 (SC), this Court was faced with an omission and re-enactment of two Sections of the Income-tax Act. This Court found that section 24 of the General Clauses Act would ap…

DCIT Circle -6(1), Hyderabad vs. Suryadevara Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 423/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54G

…vident from the purchase invoices and notes to the financials. Accordingly, he directed the AO to allow the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54GB of the Act. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd., 376 ITR 596, on which reliance placed by the assessee. On considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54GB of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are dismissed.” Page 4 of 6…

M/S Geneva Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is allowed in part;

ITA/456/2018HC Karnataka05 Apr 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 132Section 133ASection 260Section 54G

…- 1 - ITA No. 456 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2018 BETWEEN: M/s. GENEVA INDUSTRIES LTD (FORMERLY GENEVA FINE PUNCH ENCLOSURES LTD) NO.140/1, PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILLAGE WHITEFIELD ROAD BENGALURU-560 066 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. T. MURALI KRISHNA REDDY …APPELLANT (BY SHRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K.V. VINODA KUMAR NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND:…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…aving aside cases where proceedings were commenced, prosecuted and brought to finality before the repeal, no proceedings under the repealed statute can be commenced or continued after the repeal.” The Supreme Court in the case of Fiber Board P. Ltd. vs. CIT (376 ITR 596) has held that ―repeal ―would include ―omission‖ and any other interpretation would be wholly superfluous. Therefore, the Appellant submits that once the Explanation providing for extended meaning of ―dividend‖ has been omitted, dividend has to be interpreted as understood in its common parlance as provided for in the Companies Act. The Appellan…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

Dr. Sheela Puttabuddi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 293/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvoicateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

…tal gains was utilised within the specified time and the 11 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. registration was not germane to the claim, as long as the asset was acquired. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Fibreboards (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 376 ITR 596 (SC) had held that the utilization of the capital gains within the period would suffice for making the claim of deduction u/s 54G of the I.T.Act and there was no requirement to acquire the asset intended within the period specified, provided the same has been acquired in due course. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as foll…

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)

…ion, whether repealed or modified, is inconsistent with the corresponding new statutory provisions, that such an notification ceases to hold good in law. In a rather recent judgment in the case of Fibre Boards (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 135/[2017] 376 ITR 596 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle, and, inter alia, observed as follows: 34. In CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174/103 Taxman 503 (SC), this Court was faced with an omission and re-enactment of two Sections of the Income-tax Act. This Court found that Section 24 of the General Clauses Act would app…

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)

…ITA No. 155/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI I BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar VP and Amarjit Singh JM] Assessment year: 2014-15 Technimont Pvt Ltd ……………….............Appellant Technimont House, Chinchpokli Bunder, 504, Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai 400 064 [PAN: AAACI2628B] Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) Circle 13(3)(2), Mumbai ………….……......Respondent Appearances by M P Lohia, along-with Nikhil Tiwari for the appellant Sanjay Singh for the respondent Dates of hearing of the appeal : January 29, 2020 Date of pronouncing this order : F…

Hemdendra K. Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1017/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 8 Shri Hemendra K. Shah 8. The Ld A.R also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(376 ITR 596), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the dispute over deduction claimed u/s 54G of the Act. With regard to the utilisation of capital gain for the purpose of availing deduction u/s 54G of the Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court, at page 619- para 36, observed as under:- “A reading of sectin 54G makes it clear that the assessee is given a w…

ITO 27(2)(5), Navi Mumbai vs. Parasmal C. Bamboli, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 2497/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer-27(2)(5), Shri Parasmal C. Bamboli, Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Sarvodaya Vastra Bhandar, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Ramgiri Bldg., Govandi Road, Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Chembur, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aafpb2058Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Poojary (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 31/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2018

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54

…lat through registration actually confers the right of ownership. 4. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by quoting the Hon’ble Supreme court decision (ITR) in the cae of M/s Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 376 ITR 596 (SC) which is not applicable for section 54 of the I.T. Act. 3. At the outset, it transpired that in the aforesaid case, the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is below Rs.20 lacs, as per the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, F. No. 279/Misc.…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Kannan Santhanam, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 636/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.636/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Kannan Santhanam, Income Tax, V. 401-A Laures 59-60, Non Corporate Circle 16, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 018. Pan : Aahps 1094 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri P.B. Srinivasan, CA

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 54

…posited money, according to the Ld. 5 I.T.A. No.636/Mds/16 representative, the capital gain would not remain with the assessee for making deposit in Capital Gains Account. 6. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 376 ITR 596, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that what is required to be deposited in the Capital Gains Account is unutilised for portion of capital gain. In this case, the assessee has utilised the capital gain by way of making advance to the builder for purchase of flat. Advance paid by the assessee for purchase/construction of a residen…

M/S Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commnr. of Central Excise

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-004280-004280 - 2007Supreme Court24 Nov 2015

…wiped out. 7. Shri Ajay Aggarwal, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant fairly submitted that a recent judgment delivered by this Bench, namely, M/s Fibre Boards (P) Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, [2015] 376 ITR 596 (SC), would cover the matter before us being directly against the appellant’s case. However, he submitted that for various reasons this judgment requires a relook and ought to be referred to a larger Bench of three Judges. Shri Aggarwal argued the matter with great ability and we listened to him with considerable interest. 8. First,…

M/S Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commnr. of Central Excise

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-004280-004280 - 2007Supreme Court24 Nov 2015