“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

ITA 194/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

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

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

ITA 164/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to

ITA 3531/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: We Advert To The Grounds Taken In The Cross Appeals, It Would First Be Relevant To Cull Out The Basic Facts Of The Case & Effect Of Law In Brief In Respect Of Certain Ays. Search U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Was Conducted Against The Rubberwala Group, On 17-03-2021 Thereby Triggering Section 153A Of The Act. Prior To The Date Of Search, The Income-Tax Assessments For Ays 2015-16 To 2019-20 Were Either Completed U/S 143(1)/143(3) Of The Act And/Or The Time Limit For Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Had Expired. Accordingly, The Income-Tax 3

For Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

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

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3508/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14, 2014-

ITA 3455/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Hilton Infrastrucutre, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14, 2014-

ITA 3454/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14, 2014-

ITA 3452/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3448/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpa

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JM

Rita Gupta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir.2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 2(14)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 47

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

Navin Kumar Jain, Indore vs. ITO ACIT Dycit Faceless Assessment, Indore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 469/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 148

Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate 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 ... Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income- tax Appellate 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

Navin Kumar Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Faceless Assessment Centre, Indore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 468/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 148

Aabhushan, Dhamnod, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

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

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

point at issue may please be withdrawn.” Reliance was also placed on the following decision • B.V.K. Seshavataram Vs. CIT, 210 ITR 633 (AP) “Section 256(1) , read with section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Reference to High Court - Question of law - Assessment years

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2936/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

Tribunal. On the application of the department the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court for its determination under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Page No.| 21 ITA NO.1407, 1638, 2839 & 2936, /MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., "Whether

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2839/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

Tribunal. On the application of the department the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court for its determination under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1407/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Yogender Mohan Rustagi, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 8270/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Central Circle 28, Vs. Yogender Mohan Rustagi, Newdelhi. 288, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Agupr9629J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vibhu Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date Of Order : 10.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 256(1)

Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate 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

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4867/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40

Tribunal. On the application of the department the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court for its determination under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3458/MUM/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 44C

Tribunal. On the application of the department the Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court for its determination under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that