Union of India and Others v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.

55 ELT 433Supreme Court of India1991#1967 most cited

What is Union of India and Others v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. authority for?

A lower authority is bound to follow an order of a superior judicial authority, even if the order is not acceptable to the department and is subject to an appeal. The mere fact that an order is not accepted by the Department and is under appeal does not furnish grounds for not following it.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. · 55 ELT 433 · binding effect of orders · appellate authority · departmental appeal · following superior court judgments · section 147 · section 148 · section 153A

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India and Others v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.

Prakash Reddy Vatti, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1806/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Vatti Prakash Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 018. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 017. Pan Aaspv8120C Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca A Vamseedhar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA A VamseedharFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 144B(7)(vii)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…judgment of the High Court would not mean that till the same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose its binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC), the Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue of treating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the…

Srikanth Kakati, Kothagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kothagudem

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1341/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1341/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Srikanth Kakati, The Income Tax Officer, Kothagudem–507 Ward-1, Vs. 101. Khammam. Kothagudem. Telangana. Pin –507 101. Pan Csupk1347N Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ms Ml Niharika, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: MS ML Niharika, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 148Section 69Section 69A

…ized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] 12 [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) 13 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 14 [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) “6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness o…

Bandaru Chandra Sekhar, Kadapa vs. ITO, Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1716/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1716/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2019-2020 Bandaru Chandra The Income Tax Officer, Sekhar, Ward-1, Proddutur. Jammalamadugu Po & Vs. Pin – 516 350. Taluka, Kadapa Dist. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 516 434. Pan Aozpb5357G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca K A Sai Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: MS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148

…ized by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] 12 [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) 13 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 14 [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) “6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness o…

Arkay Energy (Rameswarm) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1562/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1562/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Arkay Energy (Rameswarm) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aafca0044C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2025 Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

…d by the Supreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court. 11 [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] 12 [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) 13 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) 14 [1992] taxmann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or…

Union of India and Others v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (55 ELT 433) — Cited in 58 Judgments | BharatTax