Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

Vaghasiya Exports, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Vaghasiya Exports, Pr. Cit-32, C-11, Bharat Diamond Bourse, 2Nd Floor, Ae-2080, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (E), Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafv 2061Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivram, A.R. & Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad-In-Law & Liable To Be Quashed 1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Issuing Notice U/S.263 Of The Act Based Upon The Proposal Received From Ito / Jt. Cit & Not By Suo-Moto Examination Of Records & Application Of Mind & Thus, The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Are Carried Out Upon The Directions Of Ito / Jt. Cit Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Sec. 263 Of The Act & Hence, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

…of any law under article 141 and consequently there is no merger of High Court decision with the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For this proposition, the Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC). Similarly, SLP against the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, confirming the order of Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT (1996) 58 ITD 428 Ahmedabad sustaining of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases, has been dismissed in Vijay Protein Ltd. vs. CIT SLP No.8956/2015 dated 06.04.2015. Therefore, the observations and opin…

Dena Bank, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

…onstitution. In a recent decision, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd reported in [2019] 1Q4taxmann com 25 (SC) upheld the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed reported in [2000] 245 ITR 360 (SC) about the binding precedence of the Law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In para 24 of Khoday's judgment the Court extracted the principles laid down in the Kunhayammeti judgment The relevant extract is as follows” ....Where the order rejecting an SLP is a speaking order, that is, where reasons Have been assigned by this Court for reje…

Prakash Ramji Gavali, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(2), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in the terms indicated above

…same. If such an order of this Court is non- speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. The following discussion on this proposition in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, is relevant in this regard: “(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is th…