State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel

4 SCC 590Reported decision1985#7034 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 44

Issues it is cited on

section 33acdepreciation on softwaresection 64first proviso to section 147section 115jb(2)section 194jsection 33written down valuekelvinatorcomputer softwareintangible assetssection 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-010586-010589 - 2025Supreme Court08 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 44B

…it apparent that the intent of the Parliament behind Section 144C is to expedite the final disposal of tax disputes pertaining to an eligible assessee. It should be recalled that a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, (1985) 4 SCC 590 observed that the principle that a taxing statute should be strictly construed does not exclude a reasonable construction which gives effect to the purpose or intention of a provision as apparent from the scheme of the Act. It goes without saying that such reasonable construction is to be achieved only with the assistance of the internal and e…

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…detected over a period of time and the data collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:- "35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974- 1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liab…

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 87/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1 2 3

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 148

…detected over a period of time and the data collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:-"35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974- 1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liab…

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 495/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…detected over a period of time and the data collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:- "35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974- 1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liab…

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…detected over a period of time and the data collated in respect thereof. The concept of historical trends was explained as under:- "35. In the present case, the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] . That was the case of gratuity. For Assessment Year 1974- 1975 the assessee Company sought to deduct a sum of Rs 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its employees and worked out actuarially. No provision was made for Rs 18,37,727. The claim for deduction was made on the ground that the liab…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD.)

ITA/304/2024HC Delhi30 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 37

…pect of the amounts actually paid by the assessee and the rest was disallowed on the ground of non- compliance with the provisions of Section 40-A(7) of the 1961 Act. This view of ITO was affirmed by CIT(A). 36. The Tribunal in Shree Sajjan Mills [(1985) 4 SCC 590 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 82 : (1985) 156 ITR 585] held that for the earlier assessment year relating to 1973-1974, actuarially ascertained liability for gratuity arising under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was an allowable deduction. However, for the assessment year in question, the Tribunal held that the increased liability claimed by the assesse…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…arashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800, the Supreme Court held that the excess land acquired by the Municipal Committee, when sold in plots for housing colony, it served public purpose. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel, (1977) 4 SCC 590, has held that the ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 27 of 60 acquisition of land for housing facilities of a Cooperative Society was for public purpose. It is submitted that the activity undertaken by the assessee at the behest of the State Government is a Governmental function carried on…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…arashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800, the Supreme Court held that the excess land acquired by the Municipal Committee, when sold in plots for housing colony, it served public purpose. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel, (1977) 4 SCC 590, has held that the ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 27 of 60 acquisition of land for housing facilities of a Cooperative Society was for public purpose. It is submitted that the activity undertaken by the assessee at the behest of the State Government is a Governmental function carried on…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…arashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800, the Supreme Court held that the excess land acquired by the Municipal Committee, when sold in plots for housing colony, it served public purpose. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel, (1977) 4 SCC 590, has held that the ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 27 of 60 acquisition of land for housing facilities of a Cooperative Society was for public purpose. It is submitted that the activity undertaken by the assessee at the behest of the State Government is a Governmental function carried on…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…arashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800, the Supreme Court held that the excess land acquired by the Municipal Committee, when sold in plots for housing colony, it served public purpose. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel, (1977) 4 SCC 590, has held that the ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 27 of 60 acquisition of land for housing facilities of a Cooperative Society was for public purpose. It is submitted that the activity undertaken by the assessee at the behest of the State Government is a Governmental function carried on…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…arashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800, the Supreme Court held that the excess land acquired by the Municipal Committee, when sold in plots for housing colony, it served public purpose. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel, (1977) 4 SCC 590, has held that the ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 27 of 60 acquisition of land for housing facilities of a Cooperative Society was for public purpose. It is submitted that the activity undertaken by the assessee at the behest of the State Government is a Governmental function carried on…

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…arashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800, the Supreme Court held that the excess land acquired by the Municipal Committee, when sold in plots for housing colony, it served public purpose. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel, (1977) 4 SCC 590, has held that the ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 27 of 60 acquisition of land for housing facilities of a Cooperative Society was for public purpose. It is submitted that the activity undertaken by the assessee at the behest of the State Government is a Governmental function carried on…

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. CIT, LTU-A,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2144/CHNY/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2144/Chny/2008 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 1998-99 M/S.Ashok Leyland Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner – No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Of Income Tax Guindy, Company Circle-I (1), Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…this question, we shall first take note of the meaning of the word "provision". First, we should steer clear of what is a provision in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1985) 4 SCC 590, it is pointed out that the expression provision under Section 40A(7) has not been defined in the Act and is not used in any artificial sense but in its ordinary sense. It was held that the provision in its ordinary sense means something that is provided for future use. Thus, the assessee has made provisions with regard to the payment of the purcha…

M/S. LOTUS BUILDTECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 5837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…n ignorance of applicable provisions of 124 which act as a bar to rake up jurisdictional issues later. Since this decision is rendered without reference to the statutory bars, it cannot be used as a binding precedent as held in State v. Ratan Lai Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590. (ii) Unlike the present appeals, this judgment is not in the context of section 153C. (iii) Judgment neither shows formulation of questions nor shows as to what all questions of law were raised by the Revenue. (iv) It does not considers its own judgment in SSP Aviation Ltd which was directly on section 153C. (v) It holds something not even indic…

M/S. LOTUS BUILDTECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 5836/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…n ignorance of applicable provisions of 124 which act as a bar to rake up jurisdictional issues later. Since this decision is rendered without reference to the statutory bars, it cannot be used as a binding precedent as held in State v. Ratan Lai Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590. (ii) Unlike the present appeals, this judgment is not in the context of section 153C. (iii) Judgment neither shows formulation of questions nor shows as to what all questions of law were raised by the Revenue. (iv) It does not considers its own judgment in SSP Aviation Ltd which was directly on section 153C. (v) It holds something not even indic…

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

ITA 6947/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…n ignorance of applicable provisions of 124 which act as a bar to rake up jurisdictional issues later. Since this decision is rendered without reference to the statutory bars, it cannot be used as a binding precedent as held in State v. Ratan Lai Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590. (ii) Unlike the present appeals, this judgment is not in the context of section 153C. (iii) Judgment neither shows formulation of questions nor shows as to what all questions of law were raised by the Revenue. (iv) It does not considers its own judgment in SSP Aviation Ltd which was directly on section 153C. (v) It holds something not even indica…

State of Gujarat v. Sankalchand Khodidas Patel (4 SCC 590) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax