Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Sr. DM LIC

M/S. Lotus Buildtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

…what was done in a given case, without laying down the law cannot be read as a precedent, as held in Common Cause v. Uol (2004) 5 SCC 222, 223 (para 6)}. --Judgment to be applied should not be per incuriam: as held in Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Sr. DM LIC (2004) 8 SCC 387 396 (para 23). --Judgment to be applied should not be ‘sub silentio’. as held in State of UP Synthetics & Chemicals (1991) 4 SCC 139 (i) SC; Amrit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 para 20. (ii) II The decisions being relied upon by the AR as being discussed below are the ones which were obtained by suppressing the vital fact that before the…

M/S. Lotus Buildtech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

…what was done in a given case, without laying down the law cannot be read as a precedent, as held in Common Cause v. Uol (2004) 5 SCC 222, 223 (para 6)}. --Judgment to be applied should not be per incuriam: as held in Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Sr. DM LIC (2004) 8 SCC 387 396 (para 23). --Judgment to be applied should not be ‘sub silentio’. as held in State of UP Synthetics & Chemicals (1991) 4 SCC 139 (i) SC; Amrit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 para 20. (ii) II The decisions being relied upon by the AR as being discussed below are the ones which were obtained by suppressing the vital fact that before the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Aggarwal Plasto Chem Pvt.Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…“land includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth”. The issue before the Court was 40 AIR 1929 Mad 487 41 AIR 1932 Bom 370 42 AIR 1946 Cal 217 43 (1982) 1 APLJ 106 44 (2004) 8 SCC 387 45 (2003) 7 SCC 589 46 (2017) 10 SCC 713 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.03.2026 14:32:30 Signature Not Verified LPA 144/2016 Page 36 of 61 whether a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act could be launched to acquire a part of a building when the owners of the building were different from the owners of the land. The High Court…

M/S. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

…y what was done in a given case, without laying down the law cannot be read as a precedent, as held in Common Cause v. Uol (2004) 5 SCC 222, 223 (para 6)}. --Judgment to be applied should not be per incuriam: as held in Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Sr. DM LIC (2004) 8 SCC 387 396 (para 23). --Judgment to be applied should not be ‘sub silentio’. as held in State of UP Synthetics & Chemicals (1991) 4 SCC 139 SC; (i) Amrit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 para 20. (ii) II The decisions being relied upon by the AR as being discussed below are the ones which were obtained by suppressing the vital fact that before the…