LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

3 SCC 151Reported decision1989#3033 most cited

What is LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT authority for?

Courts cannot substitute their own views for those of the Directorate of Enforcement when assessing whether actions were taken arbitrarily or without jurisdiction. The court must consider the substance of the matter, not just the form.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement · Directorate of Enforcement · substance over form · jurisdiction · arbitrary action · assessment procedure · section 143(3) · section 250

Sections most often in play

Section 115JSection 115JASection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(v)section 80hhesection 35absection 92f(ii)section 80ia(1)section 80ia(5)section 10basection 115jasection 35asubstance over formsection 92(1)section 42

Judgments citing LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Meerama Overseas Pvt Ltd vs. The Deputy Director

WP/62102/2016HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

M/S Jsw Steel Limited vs. Deputy Director

WP/17894/2015HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

C Mahadesh @ Avvamahadesh vs. The Deputy Director

WP/46318/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

M/S. Jsw Steel Limited vs. Deputy Director

WP/24444/2015HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

M Gopi vs. The Joint Director

WP/15917/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

Nataraj Dakshinamurhty vs. The Assistant Director

WP/6159/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

Shri S Thimmaraju vs. The Deputy Director

WP/36310/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

M Gopi vs. The Joint Director

WP/15918/2013HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

Shri V Bhaskar vs. The Deputy Director

WP/27744/2018HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…RA LTD. AND ANOTHER. iii) 2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 8658: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. iv) LAWS(DLH) 2015 4 47: AJANTA MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. v) (2013) 2 SCC 212: SUKHDEV SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA. vi) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. vii) (2008) 14 SCC 186: ASLAM MOHAMMAD MERCHANT vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS. viii) (2015) 11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS.…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…o or compel econsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned' . . ." Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram and Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it is stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this court does not depend upon whether a particular rgument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision ..." 25. A similar view is again taken by the Hon…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…o or compel econsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned' . . ." Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram and Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it is stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this court does not depend upon whether a particular rgument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision ..." 25. A similar view is again taken by the Hon…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…o or compel econsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned' . . ." Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram and Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it is stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this court does not depend upon whether a particular rgument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision ..." 25. A similar view is again taken by the Hon…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…o or compel econsideration of a binding precedent . . . a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned' . . ." Similarly in the case of Kesho Ram and Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, it is stated by the Supreme Court thus (page 160): "The binding effect of a decision of this court does not depend upon whether a particular rgument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision ..." 25. A similar view is again taken by the Hon…

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1548/KOL/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Instrumentarium Corporation Limited………………..………………………………..……….……....Appellant P.O. Box 100, Fi-00031 Ge, Finland Cc: Pricewterhouse Coopers South City Pinnacle 7Th Floor Plot No.Xi-I Sector V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aadcg 1535 E] Ddit (I.T.)-1(1), Kolkata.….....................................................................................….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sachit Jolly, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’), Dt. 09/06/2009. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Assessment Year Of This Common Order. 2. The Appeals Bearing No’S Ita No. 1548 & 1549/Kol/2009 , For The Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2004-05, Were Referred By The Hon’Ble, Itat To A Special Bench Vide Order Dt. 6Th April, 2010, To Answer The Following Re-Framed Question.

Section 250

…s to undo the interpretation on this issue, placed by the Special Bench. We find that the question as reframed and answered by the Special Bench is comprehensive and this is binding on us. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshoram & Co. Vs. UOI 1989 3 SCC 151 at page 160 held: “The binding effect of a decision of this Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Prasad Mishra vs. State of UP. 19…

Commissioner of Income Tax- TDS vs. M/S. A.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd

The appeal is partly allowed and the

ITTA/123/2016HC Telangana25 Jan 2017

Bench: The Learned

For Appellant: Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate

…__________________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 123 of 2016 along with Cross Objections No.94 of 2016 Reserved on: 20.10.2023 Date of Decision: 21st November, 2023 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Smt. Ram Piyari & others ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant : Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4. : Mr. Tar…

B J Services Co. Middle East Ltd., Dehradun vs. ADIT(Intl. Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3889/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amil Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271BSection 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

…annot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent... A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned....". Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "(t)he binding effect of a decision of this Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision " In view of these discussions, we see no reason to tak…

Girish Raghunath Mehta vs. Inspector of Customs

The appeals are dismissed

Crl.A. No.-001020-001021 - 2009Supreme Court07 Sept 2016
Section 15Section 42Section 67Section 8

…f recording the statement. The statement was not voluntary. Its contents were not read over to him. A-2 was also in custody and his statement was also not voluntary. Statement of co-accused could not 1 (2000) 2 SCC 513 2 (2016) 6 SCALE 32 3 (2013) 2 SCC 212 4 (2013) 16 SCC 31 5 (2009) 12 SCC 161 6 (2009) 16 SCC 496 7 (2008) 16 SCC 417 Page 6 JUDGMENT 6 be taken as substantive evidence. The same could not be relied upon in view of the decision in Bal Mukund and Raju Premji (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the State supports the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He submitted that…

Girish Raghunath Mehta vs. Inspector of Customs

The appeals are dismissed

Crl.A. No.-001020-001021 - 2009Supreme Court07 Sept 2016
Section 15Section 42Section 67Section 8

…f recording the statement. The statement was not voluntary. Its contents were not read over to him. A-2 was also in custody and his statement was also not voluntary. Statement of co-accused could not 1 (2000) 2 SCC 513 2 (2016) 6 SCALE 32 3 (2013) 2 SCC 212 4 (2013) 16 SCC 31 5 (2009) 12 SCC 161 6 (2009) 16 SCC 496 7 (2008) 16 SCC 417 Page 6 JUDGMENT 6 be taken as substantive evidence. The same could not be relied upon in view of the decision in Bal Mukund and Raju Premji (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the State supports the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He submitted that…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 1332/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 144CSection 44Section 44BSection 9

…annot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent... A decision does not lose its authority merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned....". Similarly, in the case of Kesho Ram & Co. v. Union of India [1989] 3 SCC 151, Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "(t)he binding effect of a decision of this Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to which the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the earlier decision " In view of these discussions, we see no reason to tak…