https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20930 Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held to preserve the same charging scheme as the earlier Act, and the machinery provisions permitted assessment either of an unregistered firm or of its partners on the same income, but not both. Double assessment of identical income in the hands of both entities was therefore impermissible, and the firm's assessment after the partners had been assessed was invalid. On precedent, a co-ordinate Division Bench was required to follow an earlier binding Division Bench decision unless it had been overruled by a higher court or a larger Bench; disagreement alone did not justify departure, and per incuriam applied only where binding authority or a statutory provision had been ignored. en-us Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:27:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20930 Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held to preserve the same charging scheme as the earlier Act, and the machinery provisions permitted assessment either of an unregistered firm or of its partners on the same income, but not both. Double assessment of identical income in the hands of both entities was therefore impermissible, and the firm's assessment after the partners had been assessed was invalid. On precedent, a co-ordinate Division Bench was required to follow an earlier binding Division Bench decision unless it had been overruled by a higher court or a larger Bench; disagreement alone did not justify departure, and per incuriam applied only where binding authority or a statutory provision had been ignored. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20930