Rodamal Lalchand v. CIT

158 ITR 224High Court1986#22943 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB(2)Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 22income-tax officertransfersection 143section 250section 14indianfactotal incomedocumentinterest

Judgments citing Rodamal Lalchand v. CIT

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

…is no ground for impugning the authority of the precedent. A precedent on the construction of a statute is as much binding as any other, and the fact that it was mistaken in its reasoning does not destroy its binding force. " In Choudry Brothers' case [1986] 158 ITR 224, as noticed above, the Division Bench treated the judgment in Ch. Atchaiah's case [1979] 116 ITR 675, as per incuriam on the ground that the earlier Division Bench did not notice the significant changes the charging section 3 has undergone by the omission of the words " or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually ".…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, 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)

…is no ground for impugning the authority of the precedent. A precedent on the construction of a statute is as much binding as any other, and the fact that it was mistaken in its reasoning does not destroy its binding force. " In Choudry Brothers' case [1986] 158 ITR 224, as noticed above, the Division Bench treated the judgment in Ch. Atchaiah's case [1979] 116 ITR 675, as per incuriam on the ground that the earlier Division Bench did not notice the significant changes the charging section 3 has undergone by the omission of the words " or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually ".…

ABDUL NAYAB SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MATURMANDIR, MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4Section 54Section 54F

…ferent views. Be that as it may, we may mention that the Patna HighCourt in Mahendra Kumar Agrawallav. 1TO [1976] 103 ITR 688, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rodamal Lalchand v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 7,the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Choudry's case [1986] 158 ITR 224 andthe Delhi High Court in Punjab Cloth Stores v, CIT [1980] 121 ITR 604have taken the view which we have taken. On the other hand, the MadrasHigh Court in CIT v. Blue Mouniain Engineering Corporation [1978] 112ITR 839 and the Patna High Court in its earlier decision in CIT v. Pure Nichitpur Colliery Co. [1975] 101 ITR 79 have taken the opposite…

Rodamal Lalchand v. CIT (158 ITR 224) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax