← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2982/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

under satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that ... amount of section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not sales by itself cannot represent the income

Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

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

Vanavil Estate, Chennai vs. PCIT Central, Chennai

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 926/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

under satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that ... amount of section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not sales by itself cannot represent the income

Vanavil Estate, Chennai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 925/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

under satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that ... amount of section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not sales by itself cannot represent the income

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6538/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)

method was bona fide and accordingly, accepted the change. The Tribunal, by its order dated 8 October 1993, rejected an application filed under Section 256(1) which is accepted by the Revenue. Further, for Assessment Years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the Assessing Officer by his orders dated 4 March

Bennet Coleman & Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 6290/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Yash PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)

method was bona fide and accordingly, accepted the change. The Tribunal, by its order dated 8 October 1993, rejected an application filed under Section 256(1) which is accepted by the Revenue. Further, for Assessment Years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the Assessing Officer by his orders dated 4 March

Dy. CIT Special Range-1, Lucknow vs. M/S Indo Gulf Fertilizers & Chemicalscoeporation Ltd, Sultanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 1539/LKW/1996[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Nov 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 256(1)Section 32ASection 35D

I.T.A. No.1539/Lkw/1996 Assessment Year:1990-91 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Alba Industries Limited, Chennai

ITA 284/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.282 To 287/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20 & Cross-Objection Nos.20 To 25/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20 The Acit, Central Circle-1, Madurai-625 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Alba Industries Ltd., No.32/2, Halls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Aabcb 5758 J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent / Objector) Cross- Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate 04.09.2024 26.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross-Objections By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Appellate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] In Relation To The Assessment Orders All Dated 27.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3)/153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [In Short `The Act'] For The

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Alba Industries Limited, Chennai

ITA 282/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.282 To 287/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20 & Cross-Objection Nos.20 To 25/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20 The Acit, Central Circle-1, Madurai-625 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Alba Industries Ltd., No.32/2, Halls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Aabcb 5758 J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent / Cross- Objector) Department By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross-Objections By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Appellate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] In Relation To The Assessment Orders All Dated 27.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3)/153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [In Short `The Act'] For The

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Beach Minerals Sands Company, Tirunelveli

ITA 14/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Beach Minerals Sands Company, Tirunelveli

ITA 13/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Beach Minerals Sands Company, Tirunelveli

ITA 1474/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Beach Minerals Sands Company, Tirunelveli

ITA 1473/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

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

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

could not be taxed under section 41(1). Aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal, the revenue applied for a reference under section 256(1) which was made by the Tribunal to answer the above- quoted question of law. 3. The preponderance of the authorities on the point

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

ITA 339/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

arrat atcha afer, ‘SV aarerfie, Fae! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI Mud. ae, fiw wees ws

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 338/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Chengalput vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 870/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENΝΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Shri Rampriya Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1946/HYD/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITA No 1946 of 2017 Sri Rampriya Developers Pvt Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME

Grr Holdings, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

hands of the firm or the same had to be considered in the hands of the partners, came up in a reference under Section 256(1) of the Act in Commissioner of Income Tax v Metachem Industries10, and it was held that according to Section 68 the burden ... made in the hands of the partner or of the firm came up for consideration upon the reference under Section 256(1) of the Act in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Kishorilal Santoshilal13, and referring to the language used under Section 68 and various authorities