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>University's Appeal Upheld, Emphasizing Tribunal Precedent and Judicial Discipline</h1> <h3>Finance Officer, Maharishi Dayanand University. Versus Income-Tax Officer.</h3> Finance Officer, Maharishi Dayanand University. Versus Income-Tax Officer. - TTJ 113, 914, Issues involved: The primary grievance of the assessee is the default under ss. 201 and 201 (1A) of the IT Act for the financial year 2001-02 despite a favorable Tribunal decision in the previous year.Summary:Issue 1: Default under ss. 201 and 201 (1A) of the IT ActThe assessee, a university, deducted tax at source on salaries and benefits but was questioned for not deducting tax on accommodation provided to staff. The AO treated the assessee in default, a decision upheld by the CIT(A) despite a previous Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee for the financial year 2000-01.Issue 2: Failure to consider Tribunal's orderThe CIT(A) did not consider a Tribunal order from the previous year in the assessee's favor, choosing to follow his own earlier order which had been overruled. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of its decisions on lower authorities and overturned the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee was not in default for the financial year 2001-02 regarding accommodation provided to employees.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of following Tribunal orders as binding precedent and maintaining judicial discipline. The decision highlighted that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the Tribunal's previous ruling and held that the assessee was not in default under ss. 201 and 201 (1A) for the financial year 2001-02.
TaxTMI 