https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17055 The dominant issue was whether the ITAT, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi HC, could disregard s. 140A(3) on the basis that the Madras HC had held it ultra vires, and whether the ITAT could entertain a constitutional challenge at all. The HC held that a HC's decisions bind only authorities and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction, and do not operate beyond it; therefore, the ITAT was not bound by the Madras HC ruling. It further held that the ITAT and tax authorities, being creatures of the IT Act, lack competence to adjudicate vires, so no such question can arise from the ITAT order for reference. Consequently, sustenance of penalty under s. 140A(3) was upheld and the reference was answered for the Revenue. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17055 The dominant issue was whether the ITAT, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi HC, could disregard s. 140A(3) on the basis that the Madras HC had held it ultra vires, and whether the ITAT could entertain a constitutional challenge at all. The HC held that a HC's decisions bind only authorities and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction, and do not operate beyond it; therefore, the ITAT was not bound by the Madras HC ruling. It further held that the ITAT and tax authorities, being creatures of the IT Act, lack competence to adjudicate vires, so no such question can arise from the ITAT order for reference. Consequently, sustenance of penalty under s. 140A(3) was upheld and the reference was answered for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17055