← All Phrases

“Section 256(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 256Section 256(1)94 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 256(1) is BANK OF BARODA v. H.C.SHRIVASTAVA (256 ITR 385), cited in 78 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 256(1)

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.

DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution
364 ITR 256 · 2014 · High Court
61
citing judgments

A subsidiary is an independent legal entity, and the mere relationship of holding-subsidiary or control by itself does not result in a Permanent Establishment (PE) for the foreign company in India, whether it be a fixed place PE or a dependent agent PE, even when the subsidiary provides outsourced services.

CIT v. Rajiv Garg
313 ITR 256 · 2009 · High Court
45
citing judgments

An assessee's agreement to an addition does not automatically prove concealment, and voluntary surrender of income without corroborative material cannot sustain a penalty for concealment.

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.

Nayan C. Shah v. ITO
386 ITR 304 · 2016 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Submitting an incorrect claim in law for expenditure does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

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.

Judgments citing Section 256(1)

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

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

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate
Section 253(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

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

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

question of law from the order of the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the Tribunal rejecting the department's application under section 256(1)." 11. On perusal of the above, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the assessing authority should form

Vijayawada Tollway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 1468/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

question of law from the order of the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the Tribunal rejecting the department's application under section 256(1).” 9. On perusal of the above, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the assessing authority should form

Ruby Jain, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Agra

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

ITA 128/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced below : – “Judgment Kania J.—The questions referred to us for determination in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as ‘the said Act’), are as follows : "(1) Whether, on the facts

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5947/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpiashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsheth Realtors Vasant Oasis, Site Office, Upper Basement, Cts No.345A 1 To 3, 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aavfa3975F

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250

reproduced as follows: - “At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: 10 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for deduction of interest

Atma Ram Builders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Alka Khandaka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

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

Balbir Gurnani, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 3124/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: 14/08/2025
Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI

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)

Court in Addl. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Gujarat v, Gurjargravures P. Ltd.. [1978] 111 1.T.RI. The assessee made application before the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for making reference to (he High Court The Tribunal refused to refer the question on the findings that ... Constitution. and obtained leave. Hence this Appeal, The question of law which the assessee sought to be referred to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act was: on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Appellate Tribunal in holding that the Appellare Assistant

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)

Court in Addl. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Gujarat v, Gurjargravures P. Ltd.. [1978] 111 1.T.RI. The assessee made application before the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for making reference to (he High Court The Tribunal refused to refer the question on the findings that ... Constitution. and obtained leave. Hence this Appeal, The question of law which the assessee sought to be referred to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act was: on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Appellate Tribunal in holding that the Appellare Assistant

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)

Court in Addl. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Gujarat v, Gurjargravures P. Ltd.. [1978] 111 1.T.RI. The assessee made application before the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for making reference to (he High Court The Tribunal refused to refer the question on the findings that ... Constitution. and obtained leave. Hence this Appeal, The question of law which the assessee sought to be referred to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act was: on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Appellate Tribunal in holding that the Appellare Assistant

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)

Court in Addl. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Gujarat v, Gurjargravures P. Ltd.. [1978] 111 1.T.RI. The assessee made application before the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for making reference to (he High Court The Tribunal refused to refer the question on the findings that ... Constitution. and obtained leave. Hence this Appeal, The question of law which the assessee sought to be referred to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act was: on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Appellate Tribunal in holding that the Appellare Assistant

Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2190/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'D' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane vs. Dodhia Synthetics Limited, Bhiwandi

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the

ITA 2105/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Morbi vs. M/S. Kishan Plus Minarals, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

ITA 124/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Laxmanbhai S. Patel vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 290 (Gujarat), had held that: “It is true that while deciding the reference under section 256(1), the Court is mainly concerned with the decisions on questions of law. If the question posed before the Court is purely a question of fact

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Grihum Housing Finance Limited, Pune

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1883/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(91)Section 36(1)(va)

1)(vii) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. We are also conscious of the fact that while disposing of a Reference under Section 256(1) of the Act, the question proposed for our opinion shall be answered taking into account the subsequent amendment to the law with retrospective effect

Raj Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3092/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 48Section 54

ITA 3092/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

reproduced as follows: - “At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for deduction of interest levied

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5710/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

reproduced as follows: "At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for deduction of interest levied

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5709/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

reproduced as follows: - "At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for deduction of interest levied