TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court overturns Tribunal's decision for not following precedent, emphasizes judicial discipline. Case remanded for fresh disposal.</h1> <h3>Hatkesh Co. Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Versus Ass. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21 (1), Mumbai</h3> Hatkesh Co. Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Versus Ass. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21 (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues:Challenging common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for multiple Assessment Years. Substantial question of law regarding Tribunal's justification for differing view without reference to larger bench.Analysis:The judgment pertains to multiple appeals challenging a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for various Assessment Years. The primary issue revolves around whether the Tribunal was justified in taking a view contrary to a decision of a Coordinate Bench without making a reference to a larger bench. The Counsel for both parties requested the appeals be disposed of at the admission stage due to the narrow compass of the issue.The impugned order of the Tribunal referenced the appellant's submission that the issue in question was covered by a Coordinate Bench's order in their own case for certain Assessment Years. This order considered the application of the principle of mutuality regarding transfer fees and TDR premium received by the Assessee from its members. The Tribunal's order sought to take a different view from the Coordinate Bench's order, relying on a decision of the High Court. The judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial discipline, stating that a subsequent bench should generally follow the view taken by an earlier Coordinate Bench on the same issue, unless there are specific exceptions like changes in law. The impugned order was criticized for not providing reasons for departing from the earlier decision and was deemed legally unsustainable.Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the appeal to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Court clarified that it did not assess the merits of the appeal, leaving all contentions open for further arguments before the Tribunal. The substantial question was answered in favor of the Appellant Assessee, and the appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 