Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 256(1) is Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (332 ITR 58), cited in 14 of the 370 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 256(1)

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
332 ITR 58 · 2011 · Supreme Court
14
citing judgments

The approval of the Committee of Directors (CoD) is not required for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

JHARKHAND v. ANBAY CEMENTS
3 SCC 274 · 2010 · Reported
5
citing judgments
DCIT v. Charipall
177 Taxmann.com 69 · Reported
4
citing judgments
Poona Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT
3 SCR 818 · 1965 · Reported
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 256(1)

Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 295/1979Supreme Court19 Feb 1996

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 2Section 44Section 7Section 7(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Jyoti Ltd

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 471/1978Supreme Court15 Feb 1996

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 256(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II), Calcutta vs. M/S. Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd., Calcutta

CIVIL APPEAL No. 595/1978Supreme Court13 Feb 1996

Bench: 3 Judges

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala vs. The Kilkotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL No. 190/1979Supreme Court13 Feb 1996

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 33Section 33ASection 33A(7)

Smt. Kilasho Devi Burman and Others vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax West Bengal, Calcutta

The appeal is allowed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2242/1978Supreme Court08 Feb 1996

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 256

Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta vs. M/S. Park Hotel (P) Ltd., 15, Park Street, Calcutta-16

The appeal is allowed the judgment of the High Court

CIVIL APPEAL No. 195/1996Supreme Court05 Jan 1996

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 256

Bihari Lal Jaiswal vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1825/1977Supreme Court16 Nov 1995

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 23Section 256(1)Section 256(2)

The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh vs. M/S. Degaon Ganga Reddy G. Ramakrishna and Co. and Ors

CIVIL APPEAL No. 222/1977Supreme Court01 Mar 1995

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 14Section 256(1)

M.S.P Nadar Sons, Virudhu Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4851/1990Supreme Court28 Apr 1993

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 256Section 70Section 80

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. G.R. Karthikeyan, Coimbatore

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3908/1983Supreme Court22 Apr 1993

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 10Section 10(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 256

Prakash Cotion Mills Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bombay

In the result, we allow that appeal partly and remit the,case relating

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1279/1977Supreme Court06 Apr 1993

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 256Section 37Section 37(1)Section 37(2)

Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2230/1977Supreme Court25 Feb 1993

Bench: The High Court Which E Held That No Action Could Be Taken Against The Assessee Under Section 23A. For The Assessment Year 1963-64 In Proceedings Under The Super Profits Tax Act, The Assessee Claimed That The Said Sum Of Rs. 4,50,000 Was A Reserve & Should Be Included In Its Capital. The Income Tax Officer Did F Not Agree. Ultimately The Matter Reached The Tribunal Which Agreed With The Assessee. At The Instance Of Revenue The Question As To Whether The Snm Of Rs. 4,50,000 Set Apart For Contingent Liability (Taxation) Was To Be Included In The Computation Of Capital Of The Assessee-Company Under Rule 1 Of The Second Schedule Of The Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 Was Referred G To The High Court. The High Court Having Answered The Question Against The Assessee, Th. Assessee Bas Preferred The Present Appeal Contending That Inasmuch -"-, As No Order Levying Additional Tax Under Sec. 23A Was Made The Amount Could Not Be Treated As A Provision. H 109

Section 23ASection 256

The Indian Tube Company Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001254-001254 - 1976Supreme Court14 Jan 1992
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA
Section 18Section 256(1)Section 261

Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1935/1981Supreme Court04 Sept 1990

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 251

M.B. Abdulla vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4973/1989Supreme Court19 Mar 1990

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 256Section 256(1)

Devi Cine Projector Manufacturing Co., Etc. Etc vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1185/1990Supreme Court05 Feb 1990

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 256Section 256(2)Section 40

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kanpur vs. Behari Lal Ram Charan Ltd

CIVIL APPEAL No. 74/1975Supreme Court22 Apr 1987

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 80

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2083/1972Supreme Court28 Jan 1987

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 27Section 271Section 274Section 274(2)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Patna vs. Amar Singh Gowamal & Sons, Jharia, Dhanbad

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1912/1974Supreme Court17 Jul 1986

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 182Section 184Section 184(7)Section 26A

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs. Biju Patnaik

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1793/1974Supreme Court09 May 1986

Bench: 2 Judges