“ Section 256(2) ”

Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT

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

256 ITR 20 · 2002 · High Court

Delhi in CIT v. Best Plastics (P) Ltd.

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.

295 ITR 256 · 2007 · High Court

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chotatingrai Tea & Ors.

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.

258 ITR 529 · 2002 · Supreme Court

B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT

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.

208 ITR 863 · 1994 · High Court

M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others

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.

184 ITR 123 · 1990 · High Court

CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co.

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.

232 ITR 785 · 1998 · High Court

256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT v. Arunaben Sumankumar

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.

272 ITR 309 · 2005 · High Court

ITA 711/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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)

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

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

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

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Rajasthan)/[2004] 186 CTR 759 (Rajasthan)[17-04-2002] wherein it is held as under:- "Both the reference applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, are at the instance of the Revenue from the order of the Tribunal, dated 3rd Sept

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

ITA 495/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Ritika Vegetable Oil Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Central Circle, Alwar [ For Short Ao].

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

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

Sh. Bhupendra Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 905/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

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

Sh. Jagtar Singh, Alwar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 994/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 24Section 249(3)Section 24BSection 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 939/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Sh. Ramnarayan Meena, Tonk vs. ITO, Ward-Tonk, Tonk

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

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

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

lose effect and would become in fructuous. The Tribunal also refused to make reference under section 256(1). On a reference application under section 256(2): In view of above submission, it is humbly requested before your honours to allow the appeal and oblige. 13. In response to, the additional

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R