← All Phrases

“reference to special bench”

AppealsSection 255Section 2552 judgments

The decision most relied on for reference to special bench is M/s Abbey Business Service (India) Private Limited v. DCIT (23 Taxmann.com 346), cited in 33 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reference to special bench

M/s Abbey Business Service (India) Private Limited v. DCIT
23 Taxmann.com 346 · 2012 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

A jurisdictional ITAT ruling in favour of the taxpayer, later upheld by the Karnataka High Court, is considered persuasive in similar cases, including those referred to a Special Bench of the ITAT.

JKT Fabrics v. Dy. CIT
4 SOT 84 · 2005 · ITAT
11
citing judgments

A decision that disregards an earlier binding precedent from a coordinate bench is considered per incuriam and lacks precedential value. Such a decision cannot form the basis for referring a matter to a special bench, as this is reserved for cases with conflicting binding precedents.

Judgments citing reference to special bench

Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ITAT held that distribution out of corpus funds is a capital receipt not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The reference to Special Bench of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case clearly demonstrates that the taxability of the said amount involves a debatable issue

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 301/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.301/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Plot No.21 Bidadi Industrial Area, Circle –2, Ltu, Bidadi, Ramanagara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-562 109. Pan : Aabct 5590 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

dated 23 June, 2021 in CO No. 57/Mum/2021, and Assessment year 2016-17 has for identical reasons given by the DRP, made a reference to Special Bench disagreeing with the view of the ITAT Delhi in the case of Gieseck.c & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd v. ACIT[2020] 120 taxmann.com