← All Phrases

“Section 256(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 256Section 256(2)54 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 256(2) is BANK OF BARODA v. H.C.SHRIVASTAVA (256 ITR 385), cited in 78 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 256(2)

BANK OF BARODA v. H.C.SHRIVASTAVA
256 ITR 385 · 2002 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Jurisdictional ITAT decisions are binding on lower authorities, such as the CIT (Appeals), establishing a principle of judicial discipline within the appellate hierarchy.

Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT
256 ITR 20 · 2002 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Books of account include electronic records and are maintained to provide credible financial data for tax returns and to determine income. Penalty under section 271B for not getting accounts audited is applicable only when accounts are maintained, whereas section 271A applies if no accounts are maintained at all.

Delhi in CIT v. Best Plastics (P) Ltd.
295 ITR 256 · 2007 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Assessment orders passed by an Assessing Officer are liable to be set aside if they disregard binding instructions or circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), especially concerning the selection of returns for scrutiny. The CBDT circulars are binding on all officers of the Income-tax department.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chotatingrai Tea & Ors.
258 ITR 529 · 2002 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

A donor cannot be held responsible for the utilization of their donation by a donee institution once the statutory conditions for claiming a deduction are met. Subsequent withdrawal of approval for the donee institution cannot retrospectively deny the donor the deduction.

B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT
208 ITR 863 · 1994 · High Court
27
citing judgments

A High Court cannot cancel the registration of a scientific research association retrospectively. Therefore, a deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) based on such a cancelled registration must be allowed.

M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others
184 ITR 123 · 1990 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The withdrawal of approval for a deduction, such as under Section 35CCA, cannot be given retrospective effect, and any reassessment notice based on such a retrospective cancellation is invalid. An assessee should not suffer due to the department's mistakes, and withdrawal of approval can only be prospective.

CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co.
232 ITR 785 · 1998 · High Court
20
citing judgments

An assessee should not suffer due to the department's mistake. If a donation to an approved society is genuine, retrospective withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's right to deduction. Withdrawal of approval can only be prospective.

256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT v. Arunaben Sumankumar
272 ITR 309 · 2005 · High Court
17
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct adequate enquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case, indicating a non-application of mind. Such an order can be revised under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing Section 256(2)

Shashank Merchant, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7525/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, C.A. & Shri Veetrag Chhajed – CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

accordingly been granted by the Tribunal exemption of Rs. 11,04,423 under section 54F. The department has made this application under section 256(2) of the Act for raising the following question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing

Khaitan Winding Wire Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 877/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Trust; (/995) 212 IT!? 456(Kerala) in similar facts holds as follows: “ We shall now deal with the other references and applications under Section 256(2) which have been heard along with these references. the questions referred for the year 1978-79 are similar, except that one further question

Khaitan Winding Wire Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Trust; (/995) 212 IT!? 456(Kerala) in similar facts holds as follows: “ We shall now deal with the other references and applications under Section 256(2) which have been heard along with these references. the questions referred for the year 1978-79 are similar, except that one further question

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "या

DCIT Central Circle-31 Delhi, Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd., Bhilwara

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 909/JODH/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(5)

findings that the question stood covered by this Court's decision in Gurjargravures (supra). The assessee thereupon approached the High court under Section 256(2) of the Act for calling the statement of case and reference from the Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench ofthe Calcutta High court held that

DCIT Central Circle-31 New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd., Bhilwara

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 908/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139(5)

findings that the question stood covered by this Court's decision in Gurjargravures (supra). The assessee thereupon approached the High court under Section 256(2) of the Act for calling the statement of case and reference from the Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench ofthe Calcutta High court held that

DCIT Central Circle-31 Delhi, New Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd., Bhilwara

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 907/JODH/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139(5)

findings that the question stood covered by this Court's decision in Gurjargravures (supra). The assessee thereupon approached the High court under Section 256(2) of the Act for calling the statement of case and reference from the Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench ofthe Calcutta High court held that

DCIT Central Circle-31 Delhi, Delhi vs. Rswm Ltd., Bhilwara

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 906/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139(5)

findings that the question stood covered by this Court's decision in Gurjargravures (supra). The assessee thereupon approached the High court under Section 256(2) of the Act for calling the statement of case and reference from the Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench ofthe Calcutta High court held that

Rng Construction Co, Mandideep vs. Addl., Jt., Dy., Asstt.ITO, Bhopal

ITA 230/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

said Act were invalid on the ground that there was a mere change of opinion"? Hence the present petition under Section 256(2) of the Act. XXX 22. We are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that the impugned order of reassessment cannot

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

aforesaid, no referable question of law arises out of the order dated 26-11-1982 of the Tribunal. 8. The reference application under section 256(2) filed by the Commissioner is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Relying on the above binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the Jaipur Bench, time

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and at the same time, the cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 4973/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi. B-236, Derawal Nagar, Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) Co No.26/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4973/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Akash Deep Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-236, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Ms. Kirti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 16.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI

Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

upheld the addition sustained by the AAC under section 69B. 6. The aforesaid questions have been referred in the statement of case under section 256(2) by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee has not disputed the fact that the petitioner has shown Rs.45,000 as cost

Shyam Sunder Gupta, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 168/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 150Section 150(1)Section 153(3)(ii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251(2)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. On an application under Section 256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held that the issue was already covered by the decision of the High Court in C.I.T. Vs A.V.M. Limited

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 447/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. On an application under Section 256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held that the issue was already covered by the decision of the High Court in C.I.T. Vs A.V.M. Limited

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1)., Ahmedabad vs. N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 443/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. On an application under Section 256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held that the issue was already covered by the decision of the High Court in C.I.T. Vs A.V.M. Limited

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1)., Ahmedabad vs. N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 442/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

purpose of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. On an application under Section 256(2) to the High Court, the High Court held that the issue was already covered by the decision of the High Court in C.I.T. Vs A.V.M. Limited

Rashleela Enterprises Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. AR &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

fact been utilised for an approved programme. Pursuant to the directions of the High Court the following questions were referred under section 256(2) of the Act (page 645): (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that the assessee have fulfilled ... fact been utilised of an approved programme. Pursuant to the directions of the High Court the following questions were referred under section 256(2) of the Act: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that the assessee have fulfilled

Smt. Sanya Surendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1523/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 1523/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Sanya Surendra Mehta 301, Swadeshi Apartment, D-37-38 Shanti Path, Patrakar Colony, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur बनाम The ITO Ward - 6(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABMPM 0118 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Cho

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 249

1 SMT. SANYA SURENDRA MEHTA VS ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX

Sourabh Agrotech Private Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT (Through
Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh