What is the leading case on Section 260 of the Income Tax Act?

DCIT v. Toyo Engineering India ltd. (33 Taxmann.com 560) is the decision most relied on for Section 260, cited in 22 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.

Which cases are most cited on Section 260?

DCIT v. Toyo Engineering India ltd. (33 Taxmann.com 560) — 22 citing judgments; PCIT v. Himanshu Chandulal Patel (108 CCH 0019 SC) (419 ITR 132) — 15 citing judgments; CIT v. Urmila Ramesh (230 ITR 422) — 7 citing judgments; CIT v. Lalit Bahsin (290 ITR 245) — 5 citing judgments; Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. CIT (24 Taxmann.com 323) — 4 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 260?

BharatTax indexes 82 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 260 of the Income Tax Act — Case Laws

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 208/CTK/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

Aircel Celllular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cricle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1605/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1604/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1603/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1602/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

Manoharamma Hotel Investments Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 1650/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1650/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & S.A. No. 31/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2024] Manoharamma Hotel Investments Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, No. 3, Sarangapani Corporate Ward 4(1), Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaccm8686M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Harshvardan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 47 Days. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition Filed By The Assessee, We Note That The Assessee Made Out A Case In 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Harshvardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 144

D.Light Energy Private Limited, Gurgoan vs. ACIT, Circle -7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.516/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) D Light Energy P. Ltd., Unit No. 102, Block B, Pegasus One, First Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurgaon 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabcj9318G बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Hari Om Jindal, Ar "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 260 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Eight Grounds Of Appeal. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are In Respect Of A Single Issue I.E. Adjustment Of Rs. 6,94,53,296/- On Account Of International Transaction Of Purchase Of Solar Goods/Lights & Reimbursement Of Expenses & Warranty Cost Claim.

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Jindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Piem Hotels Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4407/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244Section 244ASection 250

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 193/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Infor (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaacb6197Q] Circle-2(1), Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 260

M/s. Kanumuri Holdings Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/568/2006HC Telangana19 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

For Appellant: SRl. PARTY lN PERSON(Not Present)For Respondent: SRl K. MAMATA

Section 151Section 260

Devi Karumariamman Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1262/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1262/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Devi Karumariamman The Dcit (Exemptions), Educational Trust, V. Chennai Circle, No.5, Chellammal Complex, Chennai - 34. Arcot Road, Janaki Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. Pan: Aabts 7096K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai In Ita No.96/15-16 Dated 13.02.2018. The Matter Travelled Up To Hon’Ble High Court Of Madras & Consequent To Hon’Ble High Court Order, The Ao Finally Passed Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 254 R.W.S. 260 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide His Order 31.03.2015. I.T.A. No.1262/Chny/2018 2 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Stated That The Assessee Is Not Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) & He Stated That He Want To Withdraw The Appeal, As He Got Relief From The Cit(A). However, Ld.Counsel Stated That Only Direction From Tribunal The Assessee Wants Is That The Appeal Effect To The Order Of Cit(A) Be Given By The Ao Which Till Date Has Not Been Given. Without Interfering, We Are Of The View That The Ao Is Legally Bound To Give Appeal Effect Within The Time Limits Prescribed Under The Act. Hence, We Advice The Ao To Give Appeal Effect To The Order Of Cit(A) & Accordingly, The Appeal Of Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn.

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)