Section 155 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.288

Section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 288 (Other amendments) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 288 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 155 is CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (284 ITR 582), cited in 73 of the 96 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 155

CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation
284 ITR 582 · 2006 · High Court
73
citing judgments

Funds received by an entity acting as a nodal agency or agent of the government for implementing specific government schemes, or income generated from such funds (like lease premiums or interest), are not taxable in the hands of the agency if held on behalf of or remitted to the government.

M Chockalingam & M. Meyyappan v. CIT
48 ITR 34 · 1963 · Supreme Court
27
citing judgments

Natural justice, including the right to a reasonable opportunity of being heard, must be afforded to the assessee, especially when a rectification order enhances the assessment.

2 (Telegana HC) (iii) Arun Kumar Bose v. ITO
151 Taxmann.com 412 · 2023 · Reported
18
citing judgments

Tribunal decisions for a particular assessment year must be followed based on the principle of consistency, even if the assessee is litigating the same issue before the High Court.

CIT v. Hon’ble Kerala High Court
236 ITR 416 · 1999 · High Court
17
citing judgments

The actual cost of an asset for depreciation purposes is the cost to the assessee, reduced by any portion of that cost met by another person. Revaluation of assets motivated by inflating depreciation claims, rather than genuine business needs, is not permissible.

CIT v. HEG
294 ITR 438 · 2007 · High Court
13
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A(1)(b) when a refund arises on account of payment of self-assessment tax.

Sandvik Asia Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
2 SCC 508 · 2006 · Reported
10
citing judgments

Interest is payable by the Revenue to the assessee if the aggregate of installments of Advance Tax or TDS paid exceeds the assessed tax. A later Supreme Court bench referred the question of whether interest is payable on excess advance tax or TDS paid to a larger bench, doubting the correctness of the Sandvik Asia Limited decision on this point.

Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa
17 STC 360 · 1966 · Reported
9
citing judgments
Muthuraja v. CIT
369 ITR 483 · 2014 · High Court
9
citing judgments
CIT v. Needle Industries Private Limited
233 ITR 370 · 1998 · High Court
7
citing judgments
CIT v. Vijaya Bank
338 ITR 489 · 2011 · High Court
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 155

Satya Prakash Soni, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

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

ITA 133/LKW/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jun 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Satya Prakash Soni, Vs Income Tax Officer B-17, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Anqps7187P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 5.12.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2013-14 On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Entire Assessment Proceedings Commencing With Recording Of Reason To Believe & Concluding With Passing Of The Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2022 Are Void Ab Initio As The Very Formation Of The Assessment Stands Vitiated On Account Of Jurisdictional Infirmity & Breach Of Mandatory Procedure & Consequently, The Said Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Even Though The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, In Pursuance Of Which The Assessment Proceedings U/S 147 Were Initiated, Having Been Issued After Expiry Of Six Years, Was Barred By Limitation. 3. Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Quashing The Assessment Order By Holding The Same As Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction Even Though Reason To Believe Was Recorded On Incorrect Facts.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 155Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)