Section 260 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 260 is DCIT v. Toyo Engineering India ltd. (33 Taxmann.com 560), cited in 22 of the 82 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 260

DCIT v. Toyo Engineering India ltd.
33 Taxmann.com 560 · 2013 · Reported
22
citing judgments

Depreciation is not allowed on goodwill if it arises from book entries and has no identifiable cost of acquisition. This applies even when goodwill is acquired as part of a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation.

PCIT v. Himanshu Chandulal Patel (108 CCH 0019 SC)
419 ITR 132 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely on suspicion. The assessee must be given an opportunity to explain the source of investments, and the addition must be based on material and not mere conjecture.

CIT v. Urmila Ramesh
230 ITR 422 · 1998 · Supreme Court
7
citing judgments
CIT v. Lalit Bahsin
290 ITR 245 · High Court
5
citing judgments
Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. CIT
24 Taxmann.com 323 · 2012 · High Court
4
citing judgments
54 (Del) and PCIT-3 v. Fujitsu India Private Ltd.
156 Taxmann.com 310 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 260

Kuldip Kohi, West Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 7358/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 147

Birla Furukawa Fibre Optics Private Limited, Verna vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 178/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Aug 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.178/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Birla Furukawa Fibre Vs. Dy/Acit, Optics Private Limited, Circle-1(1), Plot Nos. L-62 To L-64, Panaji Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcette, South Goa, Goa-403722 Pan : Aadcb8087A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Choudhary &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, Delhi vs. Pratyaksh Apparels Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 8054/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 3

Syds Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 22(4), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1782/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 260Section 68Section 69C

Rani Promoter Private Limited, Delhi vs. Jao, Delhi

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

ITA 1628/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Rani Promoter Private Jao Limited Delhi-110001 B-9 Shekhar Appartment, Vs. Delhi-110091 अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent Permanent Account Number Of Assessee: Aadcr8878D अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant Represented By: Shri Rakesh Kumar Khiwani, Ca ""थ" "ारा/Respondent Represented By: Shri Rajore Satish Chandra Ramsevak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing: 25.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.07.2026 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 22.08.2025 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2022 Passed Under Section U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Word ‘Act’ Herein This Order Would Mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed Its Case Ex-Parte & Thus Its Right To Natural Justice Of Being Heard Has Been Violated. The Ld. Counsel Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Compelling Person Reason Were Making Requisite Compliance To The Statutory

For Appellant: AADCR8878D
Section 143(3)

Arihant Roller Flour Mills, Jind, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jind, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 942/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.942/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Arihant Roller Flour Mills Ito Ward – 1 बनाम/ Vs. Uchana S.O, Baroda, Jind Kothi No. 1234, Urban Estate Haryana – 126115 Jind, Haryana – 127306 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aamfa-5652-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal & Sh. Ashok Goyal (Advocates) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Jaishree Sharma (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 28-03-2026 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.144 R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 16-02-2024 After Making Quantum Addition Of Rs.10.06 Lacs.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal and Sh. Ashok GoyalFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270A

Vimal Promoters & Developers Private Limited, Belgavi, Karnataka vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Belgavi, Karnataka

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

ITA 84/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.84/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vimal Promoters & Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-2,Belgaum Vimal Plaza, Cts No.4710, New Goods Shed Road, Belgaum – 590002 Karnataka Pan : Aadcv8980A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.K. BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69C

Jayakrishna Nandamuri, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1793/HYD/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1793/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1996-97) Shri Jayakrishna Vs. Dy. Cit Nandamuri Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaxpn3135E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A. Harish राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocate A. HarishFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 69B

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed holding that the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer is beyond the limitation prescribed and therefore is quashed

ITTPA 1466/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 144Section 153(4)

ITO-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Pantime Finance Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7638/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito-13(1)(1), Mumbai Room No. 205, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai- 400020, ............... Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 260Section 263

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raj Goenka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1801/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Express Freight Railway Consortium, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3120/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year 2021-22 Express Freight Railway Vs. Dcit Consortium Circle – 28 (1) Room No.22, C4 District New Delhi Centre C/O Ircon International Limited Saket South Delhi, New Delhi Pan No. Aabae0055F Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Parshant Merharchandani, Advocate Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Respondent Sh. Dharm Veer Singh, Cit (Dr)

Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153BSection 234ASection 270A

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Athur Manjula, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2252/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)

Athur Manjula, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp. Ward 7(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1880/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)

Geetham Steels Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2835/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: 16.12.2025
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194A

Geetham Steels Pvt. Ltd., Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2834/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: 16.12.2025
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194A

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Arun Engineering Udyog Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1955/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 4(3), Arun Engineering Udyog Kolkata Private Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 151, A, Cotton Street Vs. 110 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Burrabazaar West Bengal Kolkata-700007, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalca8127A Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1760/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68