“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)

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 220/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

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

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 219/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 217/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 216/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

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 Cir 1, Thane vs. Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

following question for the opinion of the Orissa Hi stated the following question for the opinion of the Orissa High Court under Section 256(1) Section 256(1) of the Act : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true Whether, on the facts and circumstances

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai vs. Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 132Section 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

Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 132Section 153A

Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 73/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 132Section 153A

Smt. Harminder Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Lt

ITA - 480 / 2005HC Delhi31 May 2013

For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita

Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

granted the requisite deduction under Section 80J of the Act for the assessment year 1973-74. The Department has sought reference under Section 256(1) of the Act which reference application was also rejected by the Tribunal. Likewise, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the claims

CIT vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA - 302 / 2002HC Delhi31 May 2013

For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita

Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80