Section 158A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.375

Section 158A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 375 (Procedure when assessee claims identical question of law is pending before High Court or Supreme Court) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 375 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 158A is CIT v. H.P.Housing Board (340 ITR 388), cited in 14 of the 112 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 158A

CIT v. H.P.Housing Board
340 ITR 388 · 2012 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Each clause under Section 36(1) of the Income Tax Act operates independently and does not rely on other clauses for the benefit to be extended. This principle is illustrated by a housing board liable to pay interest on delayed possession under a self-financing scheme.

Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. v. ACIT
104 Taxmann.com 205 · 2019 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) is to be applied after considering the deduction allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. HP Housing Board
18 Taxmann.com 129 · 2012 · High Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 158A

Wadia Ghandy & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 16 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 322/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Milin DattaniFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye
Section 158ASection 158A(2)Section 158A(3)Section 158A(4)Section 250Section 260A

L& T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venure, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 669/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint The Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Income Tax, Range 12(2), Room No. 114, 1 St Floor, Taxation Department, L&T Vs. House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaal0284E

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 158ASection 234B

Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed accordingly

ITA 5839/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasini Kakkar [CIT] – DR
Section 158ASection 250

Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed accordingly

ITA 5838/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasini Kakkar [CIT] – DR
Section 158ASection 250

Raguram Garikapati by Gpa Smt.G.Prameela Devi, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-I, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2129/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri P. Vinod, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Garladinne, D.R
Section 147Section 158A(1)Section 260A

Raguram Garikapati by Gpa Smt.G.Prameela Devi, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-I, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2128/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri P. Vinod, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Garladinne, D.R
Section 147Section 158A(1)Section 260A

Raguram Garikapati by Gpa Smt.G.Prameela Devi, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-I, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2127/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri P. Vinod, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Garladinne, D.R
Section 147Section 158A(1)Section 260A

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 372/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(It)A No.371/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(It)A No.372/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Ibm India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.12, Subramanya Arcade Income-Tax, International V. Bannerghatta Main Road Taxation, Circle (1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 029. Pan : Aaaci4403L. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Application U/S 158A(5) Of The Income-Tax Act Seeks To Amend The Order Of The Itat Passed In It(It)A No.371/Bang/2016 & It(It)A No.372/Bang/2016. The Above Appeals Were Disposed Of By The Itat Vide Its Order Dated 16.06.2017. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Of The Above Appeals On 13.06.2017, The Learned Ar Submitted That The Grounds Taken In The Appeals Were Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No.280 Of 2005. It Was Further Submitted By The Learned Ar That Against The Said Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court, The Assessee Has Filed Slp Before The Hon’Ble Apex Court Vide Slp No.396 Of 2012 / Civil Appeal No.4419 Of 2012, Which Was Pending Adjudication. The Assessee Had Accordingly Filed A Declaration In Form No.8 U/S 158A(1) Of The I.T.Act (For Avoiding Repetitive Appeals) Read With Rule 16 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962, For The Year Under Consideration, Submitting That Identical Question Of Law

Section 158A(1)Section 158A(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 371/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(It)A No.371/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(It)A No.372/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Ibm India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.12, Subramanya Arcade Income-Tax, International V. Bannerghatta Main Road Taxation, Circle (1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 029. Pan : Aaaci4403L. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Application U/S 158A(5) Of The Income-Tax Act Seeks To Amend The Order Of The Itat Passed In It(It)A No.371/Bang/2016 & It(It)A No.372/Bang/2016. The Above Appeals Were Disposed Of By The Itat Vide Its Order Dated 16.06.2017. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Of The Above Appeals On 13.06.2017, The Learned Ar Submitted That The Grounds Taken In The Appeals Were Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No.280 Of 2005. It Was Further Submitted By The Learned Ar That Against The Said Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court, The Assessee Has Filed Slp Before The Hon’Ble Apex Court Vide Slp No.396 Of 2012 / Civil Appeal No.4419 Of 2012, Which Was Pending Adjudication. The Assessee Had Accordingly Filed A Declaration In Form No.8 U/S 158A(1) Of The I.T.Act (For Avoiding Repetitive Appeals) Read With Rule 16 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962, For The Year Under Consideration, Submitting That Identical Question Of Law

Section 158A(1)Section 158A(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 370/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(It)A No.369/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 It(It)A No.370/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Ibm India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.12, Subramanya Arcade Income-Tax, International V. Bannerghatta Main Road Taxation, Circle (1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 029. Pan : Aaaci4403L. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Application U/S 158A(5) Of The Income-Tax Act Seeks To Amend The Order Of The Itat Passed In It(It)A No.369/Bang/2016 & It(It)A No.370/Bang/2016. The Above Appeals Were Disposed Of By The Itat Vide Its Order Dated 16.06.2017. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Of The Above Appeals On 13.06.2017, The Learned Ar Submitted That The Grounds Taken In The Appeals Were Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No.280 Of 2005. It Was Further Submitted By The Learned Ar That Against The Said Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court, The Assessee Has Filed Slp Before The Hon’Ble Apex Court Vide Slp No.396 Of 2012 / Civil Appeal No.4419 Of 2012, Which Was Pending Adjudication. The Assessee Had Accordingly Filed A Declaration In Form No.8 U/S 158A(1) Of The I.T.Act (For Avoiding Repetitive Appeals) Read With Rule 16 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962, For The Year Under Consideration, Submitting That Identical Question Of Law

Section 158A(1)Section 158A(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

M/S the Raddi Sahakara Bank Niyamitha, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Hubli

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

ITA 369/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(It)A No.369/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 It(It)A No.370/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Ibm India Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.12, Subramanya Arcade Income-Tax, International V. Bannerghatta Main Road Taxation, Circle (1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 029. Pan : Aaaci4403L. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Application U/S 158A(5) Of The Income-Tax Act Seeks To Amend The Order Of The Itat Passed In It(It)A No.369/Bang/2016 & It(It)A No.370/Bang/2016. The Above Appeals Were Disposed Of By The Itat Vide Its Order Dated 16.06.2017. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Of The Above Appeals On 13.06.2017, The Learned Ar Submitted That The Grounds Taken In The Appeals Were Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No.280 Of 2005. It Was Further Submitted By The Learned Ar That Against The Said Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court, The Assessee Has Filed Slp Before The Hon’Ble Apex Court Vide Slp No.396 Of 2012 / Civil Appeal No.4419 Of 2012, Which Was Pending Adjudication. The Assessee Had Accordingly Filed A Declaration In Form No.8 U/S 158A(1) Of The I.T.Act (For Avoiding Repetitive Appeals) Read With Rule 16 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962, For The Year Under Consideration, Submitting That Identical Question Of Law

Section 158A(1)Section 158A(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(vi)

M/S Chennai Corporate Club (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 1 (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 720/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.720/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mrs. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 158A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 345/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sridhar V., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 158ASection 261

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 344/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sridhar V., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 158ASection 261

M/S Bangalore Electricity Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 262/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sridhar V., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 158ASection 261

M/S Bangalore Electricity Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sridhar V., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 158ASection 261

Owens Corning (India)Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO., Ward-7(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4988/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Owens-Corning (India) Pvt. The Income Tax Officer-7 Ltd., Alpha Building, 7Th Vs. (1)(3) Mumbai, Aayakar Floor, Hiranandani Gardens Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaacd1739M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 158ASection 158A(1)

Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015

ITA 996/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative The Dy. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax – 1(1)(1), Zain Rangoonwala Bldg, 78, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mohammad Ali Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400003 Pan: Aaaab2359J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Mishra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/04/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra (DR)
Section 143Section 158A

Sharda Pareek, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 342/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144

Khandesh Builders Ltd, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

ITA 1170/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Ganoo, AR
Section 115JSection 158A(1)Section 44A