2007 (12) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has acted perversely and illegally by not reversing the action of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in treating the advance rent as the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights and by remanding the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, when the issue arising for its determination was squarely covered by the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. D. P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law as well on facts in remanding the case to the Assessing Officer in the case of the appellant for the assessment year 1994-95 for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icer noticed that besides the lump sum payment of basic rent made by the assessee to the lessor for the entire period of 60 years of lease, the outgoing rent had been fixed at Rs. 9,571 per month, which was paid by the assessee. While relying upon the judgment of the hon' ble Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer opined that the lump sum payment made at the time of acquisition of the tenancy rights would be a consideration for acquisition of asset and accordingly, the consideration later earned by the assessee for transfer of those rights would be assessable to capital gains tax. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short " the CIT(A)" ), the assessee failed on this ground. Still further in appeal before the Tribuna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present case, the judgment has been referred to in the order passed by the Tribunal. Even though the Tribunal may not have discussed the same in detail in the impugned order, however, still in terms of the provisions of article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the courts/ authorities subordinate to it and no court or authority is expected to overlook the same even if no judgment is cited in the order remanding the case to a lower authority. In the present case, the judgment is referred to in the impugned order. There may even be a case where a judgment on the issue may be delivered subsequent to the remand of the case, even that would be binding on the lower authority. Still....