1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal citing Division Bench oversight.</h1> The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of a Single Judge. The Revenue argued that an issue addressed in the ... Deduction u/s 54-F - qualify as 'a residential house' occurring in Section 54-F - HELD THAT:- The issue raised in the appeal is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 03.03.2017, passed in T.C.A.No.33 of 2017 titled : Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward – 10(2) Vs. Shri Gumanmal Jain, to which one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher J. was a party. Revenue has brought to our notice the fact that in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward – 10(2) Vs. Shri Gumanmal Jain, it was observed albeit, based on information furnished to said Bench by the Revenue, that no intra-Court appeal had been preferred in the case concerning, one, Mr.G.Chinnadurai. As would be evident from the cause title of the captioned appeal it concerns the said Mr.G.Chinnadurai. We are informed by the counsel for Revenue that, inadvertently, this fact was overlooked. As, however, conceded by the learned counsel for the Revenue that this aspect will not impact the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of : Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward – 10(2) Vs. Shri Gumanmal Jain. Having regard to what is submitted before us, by the learned counsel for the Revenue, the appeal is dismissed. Issues:Appeal against the order of the Single JudgeInterpretation of a judgment by a Division BenchImpact of overlooking a fact on a judgmentAnalysis:The High Court of Madras heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of a Single Judge. The Revenue contended that the issue raised in the appeal was addressed in a judgment by a Division Bench in another case. The Division Bench had noted that no intra-Court appeal had been filed in a case involving Mr. G.Chinnadurai, which was inadvertently overlooked. The Revenue acknowledged this oversight but argued that it would not affect the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward - 10(2) Vs. Shri Gumanmal Jain, where the issue was considered. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal based on the submissions made by the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
