1983 (4) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rred by the ITO from the judgment of Madon J. (as he then was) which comes before us for admission. We admit the appeal merely because we are informed that there is no earlier judgment of this court or any other court on the construction of s. 7 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (7 of 1964), which has been construed in the said judgment appealed against. We may, however, make it quite cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r as the legal position is concerned, the ITO would be bound by a decision of the Supreme Court as also by a decision of the High Court of the State within whose jurisdiction he is (functioning), irrespective of the pendency of any appeal or special leave application against that judgment. He would equally be bound by a decision of another High Court on the point, because not to follow that decisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... single judge or a Division Bench of the court within whose jurisdiction he is operating as well as, of course, a decision of the Supreme Court. The mere fact that an appeal has been preferred against such decision or is pending can make no difference whatever to the binding nature of that decision, so far as the ITO is concerned. In view of this, although it is not necessary, we may make it perfec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X