How many judgments cite Tej International Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT (?

90 judgments on BharatTax cite Tej International Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT ( (69 TTJ 650), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Tej International Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT ( come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 153(1), Section 153(4), Section 144B, Section 158AB.

Tej International Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT (

69 TTJ 650Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#1256 most cited

What is Tej International Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT ( authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) must follow the decision of a higher judicial authority, including a non-jurisdictional High Court, over its own earlier decisions, respecting the hierarchical judicial system. When conflicting decisions from non-jurisdictional High Courts exist without guidance from the jurisdictional High Court, the view more favorable to the assessee should be adopted.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Tej International Pvt Ltd v DCIT · ITAT decision binding nature · non-jurisdictional High Court binding · judicial hierarchy Income Tax Act · conflicting High Court decisions · assessee favourable principle · ITAT procedure appeals · Godavari Devi Saraf principle · 69 TTJ 650

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 144B Section 158AB Section 153 Section 144C

Issues it is cited on

section 158ab section 261 section 144cof section 22(1)section 11(3)stay of demand section 153(4)section 144c(4)section 140 reference to tpo section 21 section 153(1)

Judgments citing Tej International Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT (

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…rtant to note that once a higher judicial forum takes a decision one way or the other, all the decisions of the Tribunal, whether division benches or special benches, cease to be relevant. In the case of Tej International Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (118 Taxman 59 (Mag)/ 69 TTJ 650), a coordinate bench has, on this issue, observed that “In the hierarchical judicial system that we have, better wisdom of the Court below has to yield to higher wisdom of the Court above and, therefore, one a authority higher than this Tribunal has expressed an opinion on that issue, we are no longer at liberty to rely upon earlier decisions of t…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2164/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 7027/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledassault Systems Solidworks Corporation Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(2) V. Mumbai C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers 52, Venkatnaryana Road Chennai – 600 017 Pan: Aafcs8787E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anantha Krishnan N Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Shri Anantha Krishnan NFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 115ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…y where the interpretation in favour of assessee will have to treat the provisions unconstitutional, as held in the matter of State of M.P. vs Dadabhoy’s New Chirmiry Ponri Hill Colliery Co. Ltd. AIR 1972 (SC) 614. [Tej International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2000) 69 TTJ 650 (Del)] 52. Even otherwise, the Revenue has not cited any direct case law of the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay before us. In the case laws cited by the Revenue of the Hom’le Karnataka High Court in the matter of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.” (supra) and CIT Vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd. (supra) though a view in favour of the…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Junagadh vs. M/S. Madhvi Construction Co., Amreli

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.R. Adhia, AR

Section 145(3)Section 255(4)Section 44A

…uperior forum, such as Hon’ble High Court- even if the Hon’ble High Court is a non-jurisdictional High Court. If needed, authority for this proposition, and detailed reasoning for the same, is contained in the case of Tej International Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT [(2000) 69 TTJ 650 (Del)]. I respectfully adopt the same. There is, thus, no legally sustainable basis for adopting 8% net profit for the purposes of estimation of net profit. I also DCIT vs. Madhvi Construction Co. Asst.Year – 2009-10 find that the learned CIT(A) has given his detailed reasons for justification of the net profit rate adopted by him, and that learn…

Dassault Systems Soldworks Corporation, Chennai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 319/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)

Dassault Systems Soldworks Corporation, Chennai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered

ITA 936/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anantha Krishanan NFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan (CIT-DR)

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

…erpretation in favour of assessee will have to treat the provisions unconstitutional, as held in the matter of State of 8 A.Y.2011-12 M.P. vs Dadabhoy’s New Chirmiry Ponri Hill Colliery Co. Ltd. AIR 1972 (SC) 614. [Tej International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2000) 69 TTJ 650 (Del)] 52. Even otherwise, the Revenue has not cited any direct case law of the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay before us. In the case laws cited by the Revenue of the Hom’le Karnataka High Court in the matter of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.” (supra) and CIT Vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd. (supra) though a view in favour of th…

ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Infrastructural Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5827/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5827/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Dy. Cit, Circ.-6(3), Mahindra Infrastructural Projects R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andromeda Investment & Finance बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. 5Th Floor, Mahindra Towers, G. M. Bhosale Marg, P. K. Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3575 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. P. Reddy ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Athawale सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, Mumbai Dated 09.7.2013 For A.Y. 2005-06. The Sole Ground In The Present Appeal Is Against The Disallowance U/S. 14A R/W Rule 8D Of The Act, On The Pretext That There Is Diversion Of Funds To Subsidiary Company.

For Appellant: Shri D. P. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Athawale

Section 14ASection 57

…lity could only be considered under section 57(iii). That is not the situation before us. No decision to the contrary by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has been cited before us. As held by the Tribunal in the case of Tej International Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (69 TTJ 650), even a non jurisdictional High Court holds the field unless there is a direct jurisdictional High Court judgment is directly to the contrary. The school of thought emerging from these discussions supports the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and appr…

Solidworks Corporation, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 8721/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Section 234B

…ply where the interpretation in favour of assessee will have to treat the provisions unconstitutional, as held in the matter of State of M.P. vs. Dadabhoy’s New Chirmiry Ponri Hill Colliery Co. Ltd. AIR 1972 (SC) 614. [Tej International Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (2000) 69 TTJ 650 (Del)] I.T.A. No. 8721/Mum/2010 Assessment years: 2007-08 Page 19 of 20 52. Even otherwise, the Revenue has not cited any direct case law of the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay before us. In the case laws cited by the Revenue of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the matter of “CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.” (supra) and “CIT vs. S…

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. DDIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7790/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Section 9(1)(vi)

…ply where the interpretation in favour of assessee will have to treat the provisions unconstitutional, as held in the matter of State of M.P. vs. Dadabhoy’s New Chirmiry Ponri Hill Colliery Co. Ltd. AIR 1972 (SC) 614. [Tej International Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (2000) 69 TTJ 650 (Del)] 52. Even otherwise, the Revenue has not cited any direct case law of the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay before us. In the case laws cited by the Revenue of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the matter of “CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.” (supra) and “CIT vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd.” (supra) though a view in favour of…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Pharmarc Consulting Services Gmbh, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT

Section 209(1)(d)Section 234B

…rom the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, the view in favour of the assessee is required to be accepted. In coming to this view, we find support from the decision of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tej International Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT [(2000) 69 TTJ 650 (Del)] wherein it was observed thus: ………In the hierarchical judicial system that we have, better wisdom of the Court below has to yield to higher wisdom of the Court above and, therefore, once an authority higher than this Tribunal has expressed an opinion on that issue, we are no longer at liberty to rely upon earlier decisions of this Tribunal…