← All Phrases

“Section 255(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 255Section 255(3)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 255(3) is Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99), cited in 181 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 255(3)

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
447 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) must be filed before the bench with territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer's location or the assessee's principal place of business.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court
168
citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

Vipan Khanna v. CIT
255 ITR 220 · 2002 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Assessment proceedings conclude and become final if a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) is not served within the prescribed statutory period. This case also clarified the historical position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.

CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd.
263 ITR 255 · 2003 · Supreme Court
128
citing judgments

A subsequent change of law is not a valid ground for exercising the Commissioner's suo motu revisionary power under Section 263. If the Assessing Officer's view is plausible, it cannot be termed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu
255 ITR 147 · 2002 · Supreme Court
123
citing judgments

The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. When the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, they must be given effect as they are, and the consequences of such interpretation cannot alter the clear meaning.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO
315 ITR 255 · 2009 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi
255 ITR 258 · 2002 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

The Supreme Court upholds the constitutional validity of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prohibits certain cash loans and deposits. This ruling is foundational for penalties under Section 271D and considering exemptions under Section 273B.

Judgments citing Section 255(3)

Anant Bajaj Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Anant Bajaj Trust Deputy Director Of Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Bengaluru Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aagta3192B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate & Shri M. A. Gohel, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri M. A. Gohel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Mahalaxmi Construction Co, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 255(3)

rates in the Finance Act, where no Mahalaxmi Construction Co. surcharge applies below Rs.50 lakh, and the Tribunal constituted a Special Bench under Section 255(3) to resolve the issue. The assessee argued that while tax may be levied at the MMR under Sections 164 and 167B, surcharge

Mahalaxmi Construction Co, Bhayandar West vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC Bangeluru, Bangeluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 255(3)

rates in the Finance Act, where no Mahalaxmi Construction Co. surcharge applies below Rs.50 lakh, and the Tribunal constituted a Special Bench under Section 255(3) to resolve the issue. The assessee argued that while tax may be levied at the MMR under Sections 164 and 167B, surcharge

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(2), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2023[F.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 255(3)Section 271(1)(c)

further submitted that there are contrary views taken by different benches of the Tribunal regarding the treatment of Franchise Fees and reference under section 255(3) for constitution of Special Bench is made before Hon’ble President in the matter of Role Model Support Pvt Ltd vs ACIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(2), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1536/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 255(3)Section 271(1)(c)

further submitted that there are contrary views taken by different benches of the Tribunal regarding the treatment of Franchise Fees and reference under section 255(3) for constitution of Special Bench is made before Hon’ble President in the matter of Role Model Support Pvt Ltd vs ACIT

Jiostar India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16 (1), Mumbai

ITA 7872/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 255(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH, ‘J’ MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (V.P.), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY

ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Jodhpur vs. M/S. Vidya Bhawan Society, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 325/JODH/2019[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

proved that the ground taken before it was admitted by the Bench and therefore, a reference was made to the President, Tribunal, under section 255(3). Once the President, Tribunal, has constituted the Special Bench and, has referred the question to the Special Bench, the Special Bench is bound ... decide the issue under section 255(3). In view of the above facts, the technical objection raised by the Commissioner was rejected. [Para 8] It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation

Jewels Magnum, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue

ITA 52/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby -Ld. CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1