State of Punjab & Others v. Surinder Kumar & Others

194 ITR 434Supreme Court of India1992#12339 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing State of Punjab & Others v. Surinder Kumar & Others

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…the very same day. Adverting to the decision in Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim (supra), it was held, in either case, that no substantial question of law arose. The same could not therefore lead to any judicial precedent (State of Punjab vs. Surinder Kumar [1992] 194 ITR 434 (SC)), with, rather, the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court under the Act being only qua a substantial question of law (Maharaja Amrinder Singh vs. CWT[2017] 397 ITR 752 (SC); Santosh Hazari vs. Parshottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC)). 7. Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 1970, w.e.f. 01.04.1970, clause (iii) of section 2(14) read…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gardenia Shelters (P) Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

ITA 612/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C S Agarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194J

…Addl. CIT(TDS) vs. Canara Bank may not be followed as per the Doctrine of Binding Precedent as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in : Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh 178 ITR 548 (SC) (556 &557 ) -Surinder Kumar and others, State of Punjab and others [1992] 194 ITR 434(SC). (C) Without prejudice submission w.r.t default u/s 1941 Without prejudice to the above, the following submission is also made: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that he has verified certain ledger accounts and other documents for A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2009-10. These ledger accounts and documents are new evidence furnished by the assessee for the…

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)

…by the AR, Hon’ble is prayed to kindly note that -- a decision is available as a precedent only if it decides question of law: as held in (i) Mehboob Dawood Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra{ (2004) 2 SCC 362 para 12} (ii) Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab v. {194 ITR 434 SC)}. --(i) Only ratio decidendi is binding; --(ii) Observations (obiter dicta) have no binding force: as held in (i) Rekha Mukerjee v. Ashish K. Das (2005) 3 SCC 427; 440-47 (para 29); (ii) Orient Paper and Inds. Ltd. v. State if Irussa AIR 1991 SC 672}. (iii) UOI Vs. Bhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44 para 9; (iv) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v.…

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)

…by the AR, Hon’ble is prayed to kindly note that -- a decision is available as a precedent only if it decides question of law: as held in (i) Mehboob Dawood Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra{ (2004) 2 SCC 362 para 12} (ii) Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab v. {194 ITR 434 SC)}. --(i) Only ratio decidendi is binding; --(ii) Observations (obiter dicta) have no binding force: as held in (i) Rekha Mukerjee v. Ashish K. Das (2005) 3 SCC 427; 440-47 (para 29); (ii) Orient Paper and Inds. Ltd. v. State if Irussa AIR 1991 SC 672}. (iii) UOI Vs. Bhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44 para 9; (iv) Divisional Controller, KSRTC v.…

Ge Capital Services India vs. Addl CIT Range 2

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 2898/DEL/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 234DSection 45J

…the facts as available in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (cited supra) accordingly the consistent orders of the authorities below may be upheld. It was also his submission relying on State of Punjab & Others vs Surinder Kumar & Others (1992) 194 ITR 434 (SC) that a precedent is only a precedent if it decides a question of law. However, despite a specific query, no argument was advanced justifying the deviation from the precedent available in assessee’s own case in 2000-01 AY. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that both the parties a…

DCIT Circle 12 (1) vs. G.E. Capital Services India

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 2808/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 234DSection 45J

…the facts as available in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (cited supra) accordingly the consistent orders of the authorities below may be upheld. It was also his submission relying on State of Punjab & Others vs Surinder Kumar & Others (1992) 194 ITR 434 (SC) that a precedent is only a precedent if it decides a question of law. However, despite a specific query, no argument was advanced justifying the deviation from the precedent available in assessee’s own case in 2000-01 AY. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that both the parties a…

M/S. Fiberfill Engineers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rehka Vimal DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 22(1)Section 22(3)Section 54Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…n support of her contention that incentive provisions have to be given strict interpretation. - Smt. Tarulata Shyam & others Vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) - CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & others (SC)252 ITR 1 - State of Punjab & others Vs. Surinder Kumar & others 194 ITR 434 (SC). 21 ITA 1853/Del/2015 28. Ld. DR further submitted that no proper reason has been given for not filing return in time. Ld. DR referred to Explanation 2 to section 139(1) which defines the term “due date”. She submitted that section 139(4) nowhere mentions that the due date as contemplated u/s 139(1) will get altered if the return is file…

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

…on of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court does not constitute a binding precedent and thus the same are not binding precedent. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Surinder Kumar reported at 194 ITR 434 [SC], the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the decision is binding only when question of law has been framed and decided, and only passing remarks are not binding. The ld. CIT-DR has drawn our attention towards second para at page 437 of this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and submitted that the decision is available as precedent only if it decides…

State of Punjab & Others v. Surinder Kumar & Others (194 ITR 434) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax