← All Phrases

“Section 255(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 255Section 255(4)75 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 255(4) is Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99), cited in 181 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 255(4)

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court
168
citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO
315 ITR 255 · 2009 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.
20 ITR 451 · 1951 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

Income derived from leasing a business asset is considered business income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing Section 255(4)

I.T.O. - 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Crest Paper Mills Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed

ITA 6126/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward -9(2)(3) M/S. Crest Paper Mills Ltd. Mumbai, 2Nd Floor, Tarun Plastic Room No. 601A, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Compound, Mogra Village, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 020. Mumbai- 400 069 Pan No. Aaacc 4343 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 255(4)

Ajay R Singh Revenue by : Mr. Himanshu Joshi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/06/2025 ORDER ORDER UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 Owing to a divergence of opinion between the Hon’ble Judicial Member and the Hon’ble Accountant Member

Gowtham Residential Junior College, Vijayawada vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 26/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 255(4)

I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM

Gowtham Residential Junior College, Vijayawada vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 25/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 255(4)

I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM

DCIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Sahil Vachani, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ जी ”, िद"ी "ी महावीरिसंह, उपा"" (तृतीयसद"), "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेशकुमारिम"ा, लेखाकार सद"के

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Delhi vs. Artistic Finance Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

merits and may be fixed for hearing for adjudication. PER: JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AS THIRD MEMBER: This reference under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) arises on account of difference of opinion between two learned Members of the Division Bench

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-I, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 6714/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

both the issues and answer ITA Nos. 6026, 6171 & 6714/Del./2017 18 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. both the 5 questions referred under Section 255 (4) of the Act in favour of the assessee.” 5. In the light of the decision of the learned third member the captioned cross appeals

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-I, Dehradun vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Dehradun

ITA 6171/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

both the issues and answer ITA Nos. 6026, 6171 & 6714/Del./2017 18 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. both the 5 questions referred under Section 255 (4) of the Act in favour of the assessee.” 5. In the light of the decision of the learned third member the captioned cross appeals

Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun

ITA 6026/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. S. LalchandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

both the issues and answer ITA Nos. 6026, 6171 & 6714/Del./2017 18 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. both the 5 questions referred under Section 255 (4) of the Act in favour of the assessee.” 5. In the light of the decision of the learned third member the captioned cross appeals

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S. Karan Kothari Jewllers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 14/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 255(4)Section 69A

President, had appointed the Hon’ble Vice President, Pune Zone, to decide the following questions, as per the provisions of section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"):– “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) impugned lower appellate discussion

Vanshika Motors (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6214/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

1 ITA Nos. 6158, 6159, 6160, 6214, 6215 & 6216/Del/2018 Dheeraj Chaudhary THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI

ACIT Circle-1(2), New Delhi vs. Associated Techno Plastics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/1992[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2025AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), MS. MADHUMITA

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6215/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

1 ITA Nos. 6158, 6159, 6160, 6214, 6215 & 6216/Del/2018 Dheeraj Chaudhary THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI

Parveen, Vpo Khanda Kheri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar

ITA 4745/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble(As) & Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Page 1 ITA No.4745/Del/2018 Double Plus Software Pvt. Ltd. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: 'B' NEW DELHI BEFORE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 25(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 612/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ao As Required Under Section 68 Of The Act, The Subsequent Repayment By The Assessee Qua The Alleged Bogus Loans Is Enough To Grant The Relief To The Assessee? 3) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessee Can Be Considered To Have Discharged The Onus Placed Upon Him U/S. 68 Of The Act To Prove The Cash Credit ?"

Section 133(6)Section 255(4)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 25(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ao As Required Under Section 68 Of The Act, The Subsequent Repayment By The Assessee Qua The Alleged Bogus Loans Is Enough To Grant The Relief To The Assessee? 3) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessee Can Be Considered To Have Discharged The Onus Placed Upon Him U/S. 68 Of The Act To Prove The Cash Credit ?"

Section 133(6)Section 255(4)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 25(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Developers, Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 568/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ao As Required Under Section 68 Of The Act, The Subsequent Repayment By The Assessee Qua The Alleged Bogus Loans Is Enough To Grant The Relief To The Assessee? 3) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessee Can Be Considered To Have Discharged The Onus Placed Upon Him U/S. 68 Of The Act To Prove The Cash Credit ?"

Section 133(6)Section 255(4)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL

The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. Blueline Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mangaluru

ITA 182/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 255(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Maheswari Mining & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar&For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Sunil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 9(2), New Delhi

ITA 1713/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar, Vs Ito, C/O Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-9(2), Advocate, New Delhi. B1 A/22, Sector 51, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201301. Pan: Aaupj0002F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rupender Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.3/10076/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-9(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Rupender Kumar Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Tarun Devcon Private Limited, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 50/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 113Section 132Section 132ASection 153Section 153ASection 158BSection 255(4)

I.T.A. No.49 & 50/Jab/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE DR. B.R.R