State of U.P. & Another v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.

87 STC 289Reported decision1972#4074 most cited

What is State of U.P. & Another v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

A decision made sub silentio, without discussion or reasoning, does not constitute a binding precedent.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State of U.P. & Another v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. · sub silentio · binding precedent · no reasoning · no discussion · declaration of law

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 144ASection 148Section 40A(3)Section 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 153(a)section 135asection 10(20a)section 148badvancement of general public utilitysection 58casus omissussection 10(20)violation of natural justicesection 271aaasection 144a

Judgments citing State of U.P. & Another v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.

M/S Jai Maa Sharda Service Station, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 25/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…was not arrived at after any discussion or reasoning on why the defect was incurable. Accordingly, it is a decision sub silentio, which according to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1972) 87 STC 289, cannot be a binding precedent. We have also scoured through the judgments filed by the assessee in his paper book. We noticed that in each and every case where a decision had been taken to annul the assessment, there was a corresponding finding by the ITA Nos.24 & 25/ALLD/2019 M/s Jai Maa Sharda Service Station ITA Nos. 105,106,107,108/ALLD/2019…

M/S Jai Maa Sharda Service Station, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 24/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…was not arrived at after any discussion or reasoning on why the defect was incurable. Accordingly, it is a decision sub silentio, which according to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1972) 87 STC 289, cannot be a binding precedent. We have also scoured through the judgments filed by the assessee in his paper book. We noticed that in each and every case where a decision had been taken to annul the assessment, there was a corresponding finding by the ITA Nos.24 & 25/ALLD/2019 M/s Jai Maa Sharda Service Station ITA Nos. 105,106,107,108/ALLD/2019…

M/S Subhash Stone Product Private Limited, Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 108/ALLD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…was not arrived at after any discussion or reasoning on why the defect was incurable. Accordingly, it is a decision sub silentio, which according to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1972) 87 STC 289, cannot be a binding precedent. We have also scoured through the judgments filed by the assessee in his paper book. We noticed that in each and every case where a decision had been taken to annul the assessment, there was a corresponding finding by the ITA Nos.24 & 25/ALLD/2019 M/s Jai Maa Sharda Service Station ITA Nos. 105,106,107,108/ALLD/2019…

Subhash Stone Product (P) Ltd., Sonebhadra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are held to be partly allowed as above, while the Departmental appeals in the matter of Vijay Stone

ITA 107/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Sh. SuyashFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR & Sh
Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 250

…was not arrived at after any discussion or reasoning on why the defect was incurable. Accordingly, it is a decision sub silentio, which according to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1972) 87 STC 289, cannot be a binding precedent. We have also scoured through the judgments filed by the assessee in his paper book. We noticed that in each and every case where a decision had been taken to annul the assessment, there was a corresponding finding by the ITA Nos.24 & 25/ALLD/2019 M/s Jai Maa Sharda Service Station ITA Nos. 105,106,107,108/ALLD/2019…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…he nature of such fund and whether or not it constituted the income of the assessee. The ld. CIT DR also took us through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and Another (1992) 87 STC 289 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the impact of a decision passed sub-silentio wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in para 41 of its order as under: - “41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In other words, can such conclusions be considere…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…he nature of such fund and whether or not it constituted the income of the assessee. The ld. CIT DR also took us through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and Another (1992) 87 STC 289 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the impact of a decision passed sub-silentio wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in para 41 of its order as under: - “41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In other words, can such conclusions be considere…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…he nature of such fund and whether or not it constituted the income of the assessee. The ld. CIT DR also took us through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and Another (1992) 87 STC 289 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the impact of a decision passed sub-silentio wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in para 41 of its order as under: - “41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In other words, can such conclusions be considere…

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…vation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. He has also invited our attention to the order of the Hon Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and Another (1992) 87 STC 289 , for the proposition that an order passed sub silentio does not constitute a declaration of law .Perusal of the order in Lucknow Development Authority & others (supra), in the light of these orders of the Hon Supreme Court, shows that the questions of law that were raised before the Hon'ble High Court and answered by it in the said order, rela…

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…vation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. He has also invited our attention to the order of the Hon Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and Another (1992) 87 STC 289 , for the proposition that an order passed sub silentio does not constitute a declaration of law .Perusal of the order in Lucknow Development Authority & others (supra), in the light of these orders of the Hon Supreme Court, shows that the questions of law that were raised before the Hon'ble High Court and answered by it in the said order, rela…