Section 260A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.365

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 365 (Appeal to High Court) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 365 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 260A is PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. (447 ITR 1), cited in 181 of the 5,384 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 260A

PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
447 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) must be filed before the bench with territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer's location or the assessee's principal place of business.

Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu
255 ITR 147 · 2002 · Supreme Court
123
citing judgments

The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. When the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, they must be given effect as they are, and the consequences of such interpretation cannot alter the clear meaning.

CIT v. Salora International Ltd.
308 ITR 199 · 2009 · High Court
103
citing judgments

Advertisement and brand promotion expenses are revenue in nature; merely improving brand recognition or deriving an enduring benefit does not automatically convert them into capital expenditure.

Southern Switchgear Ltd. v. CIT
232 ITR 359 · 1998 · Supreme Court
99
citing judgments

Expenditure on technical aid fees for factory setup and rights to sell products under a collaboration agreement is capital in nature, not revenue, as it provides an enduring benefit.

Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO
129 ITR 295 · 1981 · Supreme Court
80
citing judgments

When determining if an activity serves charitable purposes for tax exemption, the primary consideration is whether its predominant object is to make a profit or to carry out charitable activities.

CIT v. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd.
335 ITR 29 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Customer acquisition costs and advertisement expenditures are treated as revenue expenditures, not deferred expenditures, as there is no general concept of deferred expenditure for such items under Income Tax Law.

Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 273 (Bom), CIT v. Bowrisankara Stemp Ferry Co.
165 ITR 63 · 1987 · High Court
66
citing judgments

The case is cited for the principle that when a payment is made for a non-compete agreement which is part of a larger business transfer, the characterisation of the payment depends on whether it is for the enduring benefit of the business or for the loss of potential profits.

Income Tax, (1989) 111 ITR 377 (SC) and Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Limited v. CIT
224 ITR 342 · 1997 · Supreme Court
60
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the expansion, extension, or betterment of an existing business, or for improvisation that is part of the existing business, is allowable as revenue expenditure. Payments made for acquiring technical know-how and exclusive rights for setting up a new business can be capital expenditure.

Trib.) (iii) Haridwar Development Authority v. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 246 · 2013 · High Court
51
citing judgments
CIT v. Ajaib Singh & Co.
253 ITR 630 · 2002 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The mere disallowance of an expenditure claimed by the assessee does not automatically mean that inaccurate particulars of income were furnished, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely on this ground. There must be an independent finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, typically a conscious act.

Judgments on Section 260A

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundaram Home Finance Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Sundaram Towers, Corporate Ward-6(1), No.46, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai. Vs. Chennai – 600014 अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent Aadcs4826J Permanent Account Number Of Assessee: अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant Represented By: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan- Advocate ""थ" "ारा/Respondent Represented By: Mr.Madhan Kumar – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing: 30.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2026 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 03.02.2026 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Therefore Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)