Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

A DECISION OF ONE HIGH COURT IS NOT A BINDING PRECEDENCE UPON ANOTHER HIGH COURT

Income Tax - By: - Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - Dated:- 19-11-2016 Last Replied Date:- 22-11-2016 - Generally the decisions or orders of higher authorities are binding on the lower authorities. For example the judgment of Supreme Court is binding on all High Courts, lower courts. The judgment of High Court is binding all lower courts. The issue to be discussed in this article is whether a decision of High Court is a binding precedent upon another High Court with decided case laws. Article 141 of the Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

horities or tribunals under its superintendence. Conflicts on an issue between the Benches of High Courts even within a High Court have been witnessed in many a case. In such a case the same would be referred to a Larger Bench or it would be decided by Supreme Court. In Vodafone India Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II - 2015 (9) TMI 583 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the High Court held that the decision of co-ordinate bench is binding on the High Court of the same State. The High Cour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Larger Bench. Now we come to the issue whether the decision of one High Court is binding on another High Court or not. In Valliamma Champaka Pillai V. Siuvathanu Pillai - 1979 (8) TMI 210 - SUPREME COURT it was held that it is well settled that the decision of one High Court is not binding precedent upon another High Court and at best can only have persuasive value. However, at the cost of repetition we must emphasize that the decision of another High Court rendered in the context of an all Ind .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sold a plot of land in Mumbai for a consideration of ₹ 85.33 lakhs on 29.04.1995. On 16.07.1996 the appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a flat for a consideration of ₹ 69.60 lakhs. The appellant paid two installments of ₹ 10 lakhs each on 17.7.1996 and 23.10.1996 to the developer before the due date of filing of return of income. On 01.11.19096 the petitioner paid to the developer a further sum of ₹ 15 lakhs. On 04.11.1996 the appellant filed his return of in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble for purchase of the flat pursuant to the agreement dated 16.07.1996 was brought to tax under Capital gains . This is on account of the appellant s failure to deposit the unutilized consideration for purchase of the flat in specified bank accounts in accordance with the scheme of the Central Government as prescribed in Section 54F (4) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not disturb the order of Assessing Officer. Against this order the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

flat and the benefit of Section 54F would stand extended; The Revenue contended the following- On plain interpretation of Section 54F(4) the petitioner has not utilized the entire net consideration taxable under the head Capital Gains for purchase of the flat; Nor the appellant deposited the balance unutilized consideration in a specified bank account as notified in terms of Section 54F(4) of the Act; The assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption from capital gains under Section 54F o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eld that if the intention was not to retain the capital gains but was to invest it in construction of property within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1) of the Act then section 54F(4) of the Act is not at all attracted. The Bombay High Court did not accept the decision of Karnataka High Court in the above case. The High Court held that the mandate of Section 54F(4) of the Act is clear that amount which has not been utilized in construction and/or purchase of property before filing the retur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

view taken by another High Court on an issue arising for our consideration. This is on consideration of certainty and consistency in law. However the view of the other High Courts is not binding upon us unlike a decision of the apex court or of larger or a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus if on an examination of the decisions of the other High Court we are unable to accept the same, we are not bound to follow/accept the interpretation of the other High Courts leading to a particular conclus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version