How many judgments cite Suresh Desai & Ass v. CIT?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite Suresh Desai & Ass v. CIT (230 ITR 912), spanning 2007 to 2024.

Suresh Desai & Ass v. CIT

230 ITR 912High Court1998#10374 most cited

What is Suresh Desai & Ass v. CIT authority for?

Decisions of a High Court are binding only within its territorial jurisdiction. A decision of a non-jurisdictional High Court has persuasive value but is not binding on another High Court or Tribunal.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Suresh Desai & Ass v. CIT · jurisdictional High Court · binding precedent · non-jurisdictional High Court · persuasive value · territorial jurisdiction · law of precedence · Section 143 · Section 14 · previous year · India

Issues it is cited on

previous year section 143 section 14 india

Judgments citing Suresh Desai & Ass v. CIT

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 92/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

…ave heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 To begin with, in terms of the law of precedence, the decision by only the Hon'ble Apex Court or the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribunal (Suresh Desai & Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); CIT v. Thana Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 727 (Bom)(FB)). In case of conflict of opinion between the decisions by the non-jurisdictional High Court, it is the view that appeals to the judicial mind and conscience of the Tribunal that would prevail. Rather, that would the case even in the absence of any contrary view inasmuch…

Diadora Shoes Pvt Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

ITA 213/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. M/S Abc Papers Limited

Appeal is dismissed by upholding the order dated 07

C.A. No.-004252-004252 - 2022Supreme Court18 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 143Section 260A

…x v. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd.20 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Motorola India Ltd.21 It is interesting to note that this basic principle is accepted and abided as a precedent even in the two subsequent judgments of the High Court of Delhi in 18 (1998) 230 ITR 912 (Del). 19 (1980) 123 ITR 354 (Del). 20 (2007) 294 ITR 359 (Del). 21 supra (note 7) Page 15 of 28 Sahara and Aar Bee. Thus, it is well-settled that the appellate jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 260A is exercisable by a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the assessing officer is located. 19. However, our enqui…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…n over the assessee for the year under consideration. 11. There is hardly any need to accentuate that the jurisdiction is decided by the office of the Assessing Officer as has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Desai & Associates Vs. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 912 (Delhi). In that case, the assessment was made at Bombay, the appeal against which was also decided by the CIT(A), Bombay. Both the parties preferred appeals to Tribunal, Delhi, which were disposed of by the Delhi Tribunal. Rejecting the contention of the assessee for hearing by it, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that jurisdiction under s.…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. Sh. Darshan Kumar Mahajan, Pathankot

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…ad a long journey, and which is itself indicative of the legislative intent, and relevant. That a decision by a non-jurisdictional High Court is even otherwise not a binding precedent for the Tribunal, is well settled (refer: Suresh Desai & Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). There are, on the contrary, decisions galore, rendered during the long history of the provision, clarifying that, save as provided u/r. 6DD, the breach of…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Civil Lines, Income Tax-2, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AABCL4446M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.) Date of Hearing: 15.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Pr. Commissioner of In…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Virgo Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.741/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: 16.05.2017

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…CIT v. Virgo Properties Pvt. Ltd. respect under Cl. (b) to Explanation 1 below s. 115-JB(2) shall ensue. That a decision by a non-jurisdictional High Court is not a binding precedent for the Tribunal, is well settled (refer: Suresh Desai & Ass. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Del); Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 695 (Bom); CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 797 (Bom); Patil Vijayakumar v. Union of India [1985] 151 ITR 48 (Kar)). The decision in Veekayal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra), in our view, with respect, lays down the correct proposition in law. We decide accordingly. 4.…

CIT vs. Aar Bee Industries

ITA - 149 / 2012HC Delhi02 Jul 2013

For Appellant: Mr N. P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr Prakash

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 80

…isions:- 2013:DHC:3043-DB ITA No.148/12, 149/12 & 2/13 Page 5 of 13 1. Ambica Industries v. CCE: 2007 (6) SCC 769; 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Digvijay Chemicals Limited: 294 ITR 359 (Del); 3. Suresh Desai and Associates v. Commissioner of Income- tax: 230 ITR 912 (Del); 4. Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax: 113 ITR 817 (Del); 5. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motorola India Limited: 326 ITR 156 (P&H). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the revenue had placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited:…

CIT vs. Aar Bee Industries

ITA - 148 / 2012HC Delhi02 Jul 2013

For Appellant: Mr N. P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr Prakash

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 80

…isions:- 2013:DHC:3042-DB ITA No.148/12, 149/12 & 2/13 Page 5 of 13 1. Ambica Industries v. CCE: 2007 (6) SCC 769; 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Digvijay Chemicals Limited: 294 ITR 359 (Del); 3. Suresh Desai and Associates v. Commissioner of Income- tax: 230 ITR 912 (Del); 4. Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax: 113 ITR 817 (Del); 5. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motorola India Limited: 326 ITR 156 (P&H). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the revenue had placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited:…

M/S. Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

C.A. No.-002749-002749 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007

For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise

Section 35CSection 35GSection 35G(1)Section 35H

…the court to which reference should be made would be the court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the office of the ITO was situated. 11. Recently the same principle has been followed by this Court in Suresh Desai & Associates Vs. CIT [1991] 230 ITR 912. In this judgment, the Divi- sion Bench has assigned yet another reason why the High Court of that State wherefrom the matter arises would only be competent to hear the reference. A decision of one High Court is a binding authority within its territorial jurisdiction; but it is not a binding precedent for another High Court or Tribunal out…