IR 1973 SC 2758: Baidya Nath Sharma Vs CWT (1983) 140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand v. CIT

143 ITR 120High Court1983#8773 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 140A(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbe(1)section 158basection 50c(1)section 140asection 113jdaincome tax settlement commissionsection 140paper companyretrospective amendmentcorporate guaranteeshell company

Judgments citing IR 1973 SC 2758: Baidya Nath Sharma Vs CWT (1983) 140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand v. CIT

DCIT CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. S K SARAWAGI AND COMPANY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the revenue succeeds partially\non this issue.\n\n7.\nConsidering the discussion above, the Revenue's appeals are partly\nallowed

ITA 151/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
Section 250Section 92B

…her High Court should be followed unless there is\na contrary decision of another High Court was approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nin CIT vs. Jayantial Ramanlal & Co. [1982] 137 ITR 257/8 Taxman 188, Siemens India Ltd.\nvs. K. Subramanian, ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120/13 Taxman 146 and R. Parthasarathy, Asstt.\nCollector of Central Excise vs. Dipsi Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1988] 173 ITR 497 (Bom.).\n\nThe ITAT, Panaji Bench in ITO v. Dilip Shirodkar [2004] 2 SOT 947, also expressed the view\nthat once a higher authority than the Tribunal has expressed a view, the Tribunal has to\nrespectfully follow the same even…

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. S K SARAWAGI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The O/O Pcit-2, Kolkata 23.01.2024 Certificate Of Filing 2Nd Appeal Was Received From The O/O Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata 24.01.2024 Necessary Hardcopies Of Documents/ Paper/ Details Required For Filing 2Nd Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata Were Collected & Prepared. 25.01.2024 2Nd Appeal Was Filed

Section 250Section 92B

…nother High Court should be followed unless there is a contrary decision of another High Court was approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jayantial Ramanlal & Co. [1982] 137 ITR 257/8 Taxman 188, Siemens India Ltd. vs. K. Subramanian, ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120/13 Taxman 146 and R. Parthasarathy, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Dipsi Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1988] 173 ITR 497 (Bom.). The ITAT, Panaji Bench in ITO v. Dilip Shirodkar [2004] 2 SOT 947, also expressed the view that once a higher authority than the Tribunal has expressed a view, the Tribunal has to respectfully follow the same even thoug…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 62Section 801ASection 80I

…nother High Court should be followed unless there is a contrary decision of another High Court was approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jayantial Ramanlal & Co. [1982] 137 ITR 257/8 Taxman 188, Siemens India Ltd. vs. K. Subramanian, ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120/13 Taxman 146 and R. Parthasarathy, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Dipsi Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1988] 173 ITR 497 (Bom.). The ITAT, Panaji Bench in ITO v. Dilip Shirodkar [2004] 2 SOT 947, also expressed the view that once a higher authority than the Tribunal has expressed a view, the Tribunal has to respectfully follow the same even though…

ITO (IT) TDS-2, MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…ed in appeal, the same is a binding precedent, and mere pendency of the appeal does not affect the binding nature of the decision. In this regard, we find support from the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Siemens India Ltd. vs. ITO, [1983] 143 ITR 120 (Bom.), wherein it was held that merely because an appeal has been filed or a special leave application is pending against it does not denude a decision of its binding effect, and until set aside, that decision is binding on all upon whom it operates as a binding precedent, unless where the operation of that judgment has been stayed. Therefore, w…

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8707/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…ed in appeal, the same is a binding precedent, and mere pendency of the appeal does not affect the binding nature of the decision. In this regard, we find support from the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Siemens India Ltd. vs. ITO, [1983] 143 ITR 120 (Bom.), wherein it was held that merely because an appeal has been filed or a special leave application is pending against it does not denude a decision of its binding effect, and until set aside, that decision is binding on all upon whom it operates as a binding precedent, unless where the operation of that judgment has been stayed. Therefore, w…

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 397 to 399 & 367/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 to 16-17. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., cuke The DCIT, Vs. 288-289, Mahaveer Nagar, Central Circle-2, Durgapura, LIC Building, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAHCM 8947 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj…

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 397 to 399 & 367/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 to 16-17. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., cuke The DCIT, Vs. 288-289, Mahaveer Nagar, Central Circle-2, Durgapura, LIC Building, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAHCM 8947 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj…

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 397 to 399 & 367/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 to 16-17. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., cuke The DCIT, Vs. 288-289, Mahaveer Nagar, Central Circle-2, Durgapura, LIC Building, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAHCM 8947 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj…

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 174/JPR/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri JameshKurian, CIT
Section 153CSection 50C(1)Section 69

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 cuke The DCIT M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Vs. Central Circle-2 Jaipur LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA…

SUBRAMANYAM THANNIRU,NELLORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69B

…Court clarifies that when there are two provisions under which an assessee could claim some benefit, it is for the assessee to choose one, which is more beneficial. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens India Ltd. v. K. Subrahmanian, ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120 held as follows : "Where there is a conflict between different High Courts, he must follow the decision of the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is (functioning) but if the conflict is between the decisions of other High Courts, he must take the view which is in favour of the assessee and not against him." [Emphasis supplied]. The P&H High…

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5701/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akkhade
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…d that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has dealt with those decisions and find ourselves bound by the finding therein. We also find, the reliance placed by Mr. Dastur on election of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Seimens India Ltd, Vs. ITO [143 ITR 120] (Bom) apposite. (h) Lastly on the decision in the case of GSI v/s DGIT(E)[2014] (360 ITR 138) Ld. Special Counsel sought to distinguish the decision on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court was concerned with the grant of registration prior to the ITA No.5701/Mum/2014 A.Y.2011-12 16 Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority Vs. Dy. DIT…

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3776/MUM/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Armaity IchhaporiaFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Rajguru (Sr.DR)
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…al discipline requires that a Tribunal follows a High Court decision on similar issue, more so in absence of a contrary judgment of any other High Court. Reliance was also placed by the Appellant on decision in Siemens India Ltd v. K. Subrahmanian, ITO [1983] 143 ITR 120 (Bom) wherein it was similarly noted that so far as the legal position is concerned, the ITO is bound by a decision of the Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court. The ITO would be equally bound by a decision of another High Court on the point, because not to follow that would be to cause grave prejudice to the assessee. It is undisputed that…

IR 1973 SC 2758: Baidya Nath Sharma Vs CWT (1983) 140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand v. CIT (143 ITR 120) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax