TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the subsequent retrospective amendment of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for upholding the rejection by the Income-tax Officer of the application by the assessee for rectification of the order of the Income-tax Officer?" The controversy in this case pertains to the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee-company filed its return of income on August 14, 1973. Subsequently, on December 29, 1973, it filed a revised return in which it also claimed deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The assessment was completed on August 17, 1976, and in the same, relief under section 80J was not allowed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589. It was, therefore, contended that in view of the above decision of the Calcutta High Court which was also binding on the income-tax authorities in Bombay, relief under section 80J should be computed on the gross capital without making any deduction on account of borrowed capital and liabilities. The Income-tax Officer by his letter dated November 27, 1978, informed the assessee that the decision of the High Court in another State was not binding on the executive authorities and the Calcutta view having not been accepted by the Department, there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record. The claim of the assessee for rectification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amended section 80J of the Act, the order of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the prayer of the assessee for rectification of its original order of assessment was correct. In that view of the matter, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence, this reference. We have considered the question referred to us. The controversy has to be looked at from two angles. Firstly, it may be seen in the light of section 80J as amended. Admittedly, the amendment was made with retrospective effect from April 1, 1972. The order of the assessment pertains to the year 1973-74. The dispute is regarding the effect of the retrospective amendment. The question is whether the subsequent retrospective amendment of section 80J could be relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aspect of the matter has been considered by this court elaborately in its judgment dated April 22, 1993, in Income-tax Reference No. 500 of 1978--CIT v. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 727, wherein it has been held in clear terms: "The decision of one High Court is neither binding precedent for another High Court nor for courts or Tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the State or territories on which the court has jurisdiction. In other States or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may, at best, have only persuasive effect. By no amount of stretching of the doctrine of stare decisis, can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
