TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS), Chandigarh versus M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited [2013 (3) TMI 199 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ] wherein held no substantial question of law arises for consideration, inter alia, for the reason that the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide circular dated 12.03.2008 has taken a stand that the demands are not to be enforced on BSNL and MTNL offices except in the cases where taxes have been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 16-3-2016 - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ And Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Mr. Sushant Kaprate and Mr. Aditya Sood, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate ORDER Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. (Oral) Mr. Vishal Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant(s), stated at the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d case of which is ITA No. 261 of 2012 and perused all the appeals. We are also of the same view. 4. It is apt to record herein that the Apex Court in a latest judgment in the case titled as Neon Laboratories Limited versus Medical Technologies Limited and others, reported in (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases 672, has directed that every High Court must give due deference to the law laid down by oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed an application for registration as early as in 1992. The Defendant-Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another High Court even though it is free to charte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
