Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.

156 ITR 11High Court1985#117 most cited

What is Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. authority for?

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

541

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd. · 156 ITR 11 · conflict of High Court decisions · non-jurisdictional High Courts · assessee-favorable interpretation · tax law principle · Section 80P(2)(d) · co-operative society · judicial precedent application

Also reported as

36 CTR 197

Sections most often in play

Section 80P(2)(d)Section 143(3)Section 80P(4)Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 263 Section 143(1)Section 250 Section 2(19)

Issues it is cited on

section 80(2)(d)section 57(i)section 80(p)(2)(a)section 2(19)tax collected at source section 286 section 200a(1)(c)section 80p(4)section 161 section 80p(2)(c)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 200a(1)

Judgments citing Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 133/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 132/BIL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 131/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 130/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 129/BIL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 128/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 126/BIL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 125/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 124/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 123/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 122/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 121/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 120/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhamtari(C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari, Dhamtari(C.G)

ITA 119/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

The Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 104/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

…igible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the 27 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ( a group of 22 cases) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

C.G. Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd Employees Co Op. Credit Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 2044/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2044/मुं/2021 ("न.व 2015-16) Cg Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd.Employees Co Op Credit Society Ltd. C/O. Mrs. Sadhana Modak, 102, Kamal Villa Co-Op. Hsg. Society, Aaglave Lane, Gandhi Chowk, Kalyan West, Dist. Thane – 421 301. Pan: Aaaac-2551-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer -26(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra(East) Mumbai 400 051. . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ritesh Gawande ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh GawandeFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…decision rendered in the case of Totagars, Co-operative Sale Society (supra). 8. No judgement by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on this issue was brought to our notice. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of K. Subramanian vs. Siemens India Ltd. 156 ITR 11 has held that when two conflicting decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts are available, the view 4 that favours the assessee is to be preferred. Accordingly, following the first decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra) and the decision in the case of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in th…

Saraswati Pagardar Sevakannchi Sahakari Pat. Maryadit, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -5, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 591/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Saraswati Pagardar Sevakannchi Vs. Pr.Cit-5, Pune Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Saraswati School, Shree Krushna Nagar, Akurdi, Pune-411035 Pan : Aaias8438H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Umasa Chavan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Solapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax: 4, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 232/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Umasa Chavan Nagari Sahakari Vs. Pr.Cit-4, Pune Patsanstha 267 46 Raviwar Peth, Solapur – 413005 Pan : Aaabu0049D Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80OSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Pune (A) We think that the inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the category of per incuriam.” 20. In any event, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO vs. Siemens Ltd. (1985) (156 ITR 11) (Bom) has held that where there are conflicting views by two non-jurisdictional High Courts, then the lower courts must adopt that view which is favourable to the assessee. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below- “Where there is a conflict between different High Courts, he must follow the decision of the High Court within whose…

Swami Vivekanand State Co.Operative Credit Society Ltd., Solapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax: 4, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 230/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Swami Vivekanand Multi State Vs. Pr.Cit-4, Pune Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. 658/659, Near Janta Bank, Main Road, Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur - 413216 Pan : Aaias3245A Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8o

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…