← All Phrases

“Section 26(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 26Section 26(1)15 judgments

INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI

ITA 5552/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

allowance of deduction of\nINR 15,00,18,000/- was disallowed by holding that it is not allowable\nin terms of provision of section 26(1)(viii) of the Act.\nPage | 10\nITA No.4170/Del/2025 & 5552/Del/2024\n29. Ld.AR further submits that in terms of section 36(1)(viii) of the\nAct

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. SATISH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2447/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 68

nthe notification of the Government of India in the\nMinistry of Finance, number S.O. 3407(E), dated the 8th\nNovember, 2016, issued under section 26(1) of the RBI\nAct, 1934, shall cease to be liabilities of the Reserve\nBank under section 34 and shall cease to have the\nguarantee ... Central Government under section 26(1)\nof the said Act\".\n11.9.\nFrom the above, it is clear that use of\nSpecified Bank Notes (SBN) pursuant to 8th November,\n2016 up to 31st December, 2016 was always allowed. It\nwas never the intention of the Law to prohibit

J.K. ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,GANGTOK, SIKKIM vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(2), GANGTOK

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

ITA 1817/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 26(1)Section 40aSection 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी "द"प

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

therefore, urged by Mr. Gupta that it is not open to the assessee to urge now that a single assessment under section 26(1) ought to have been made. Now, there cannot be an estoppel against statute. If in fact the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer was incorrect

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

therefore, urged by Mr. Gupta that it is not open to the assessee to urge now that a single assessment under section 26(1) ought to have been made. Now, there cannot be an estoppel against statute. If in fact the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer was incorrect

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1015/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 53Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6766/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the issue

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6487/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the issue

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6508/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the issue

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6507/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the issue

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6298/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the issue

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA- COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6297/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the issue

BPS MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 282/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 26(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(iii)

discounting charges” debited under the head Finance cost in the profit and loss account of the appellant thereby invoking the provisions of section 26(1)(iii) which is not justified because Hon’ble CIT(A) has not considered the facts of the case and also not going into ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 16,83,705/- under Section 26(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act in respect of “LC discounting charges”. The interest free funds / BPS Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year

PROMETRIC TESTING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. PROMETRIC TESTING (P) LTD., GURGAON

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 397/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI