Rooplal and Ors. v. Ltd. Governor

1 SCC 644Reported decision2000#11998 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Judgments citing Rooplal and Ors. v. Ltd. Governor

JIL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 539/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Jan 2025AY 2008-09
Section 14A

…{ "clean_text": "I.T.A. No.539/Lkw/2014\n Assessment Year: 2008-09\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nLUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW\n\nBEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nI.T.A. No.539/Lkw/2014\n Assessment Year: 2008-09\n\n\nM/s JIL Information Technology Ltd. Vs. Addl. C.I.T.,\n54, JA Annexe, Basant Lok,\nVasant Vihar, New Delhi.\nPAN:AAACJ8827B\n(Appellant)\nRange-III,\nLucknow.\n(Respondent)\n\nAppellant by\nShri B. P. Yadav, Cost Accountant\nRespondent by\nShri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma\nAddl. CIT (D.R.)\n\nDate of hearing\n16/01/2025\nDate of pronoun…

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/274/2022HC Telangana02 Feb 2023

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34

…ettled law that fundamental policy of Indian Law also includes disregard to the decisions of the superior courts. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. vs. General Electric Co., (1994) Supp 1 SCC 644, wherein it was held that disregarding the orders passed by superior courts would adversely affect the administration of justice and consequently an award passed in such disregard to orders of superior courts shall also be a violation of fundamental policy of Indian law. He further relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case…

KUNAL N. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(2),

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6067/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah Acit 16(2) 61-A, 6Th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. Pan Aacps0199L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms Neha Thakur
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 69A

…is a well settled position of law that decision of co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal are binding on other co-ordinate Benches by relying on the decision in the case of S. I. Rooplal and Ors. Vs. Ltd. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors (2000) (1 SCC 644) and Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle21(2), Mumbai ITA No. 328 of 2014. The learned AR submitted that in the present case, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that Shri Dipendu Bapalal Shah is the owner of the funds in question and he being a non-resident, the said amounts cannot be bought to tax in India und…

DEEPAK B. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6066/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah Acit 16(2) 61-A, 6Th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. Pan Aacps0199L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms Neha Thakur
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 69A

…is a well settled position of law that decision of co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal are binding on other co-ordinate Benches by relying on the decision in the case of S. I. Rooplal and Ors. Vs. Ltd. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors (2000) (1 SCC 644) and Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle21(2), Mumbai ITA No. 328 of 2014. The learned AR submitted that in the present case, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that Shri Dipendu Bapalal Shah is the owner of the funds in question and he being a non-resident, the said amounts cannot be bought to tax in India und…

DEEPAK B. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6065/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.6065 & 6066/Mum/2014 Assessment Years : 2006 – 2007 & 2007-08 Deepak B Shah Acit 16(2) 61-A, 6Th Floor, Laxmi Vilas, Mumbai Vs. 87 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006. Pan Aacps0199L (Appellant) Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms Neha Thakur
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6Section 69A

…is a well settled position of law that decision of co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal are binding on other co-ordinate Benches by relying on the decision in the case of S. I. Rooplal and Ors. Vs. Ltd. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors (2000) (1 SCC 644) and Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle21(2), Mumbai ITA No. 328 of 2014. The learned AR submitted that in the present case, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that Shri Dipendu Bapalal Shah is the owner of the funds in question and he being a non-resident, the said amounts cannot be bought to tax in India und…

M/S. INDIAN ARMOUR SYSTEMS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1220/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 10BSection 14ASection 250

…cordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct the AO to grant deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act to the assessee.” It is well settled by the Apex Court in case of S.I. Rooplal 6. And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary (2000 1 SCC 644) that the orders of the co-ordinate Benches are supposed to be followed in its true spirit by later Benches. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the relevant observation of the apex court is reproduced herein below;- This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpr…

M/S. INDIAN ARMOUR SYSTEMS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1219/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 10BSection 14ASection 250

…cordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct the AO to grant deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act to the assessee.” It is well settled by the Apex Court in case of S.I. Rooplal 6. And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary (2000 1 SCC 644) that the orders of the co-ordinate Benches are supposed to be followed in its true spirit by later Benches. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the relevant observation of the apex court is reproduced herein below;- This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpr…

M/S. GAMMON INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

C.A. No.-005166-005166 - 2003Supreme Court06 Jul 2011
Section 130Section 25

…tem. This is a fundamental principle which every presiding offi- cer of a judicial forum ought to know, for consistency in in- terpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again 8 (2000) 1 SCC 644 1 that precedent law must be followed by all concerned; devia- tion from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A Coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it…

Rooplal and Ors. v. Ltd. Governor (1 SCC 644) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax