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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Indian Potash Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4578/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarindian Potash Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 1, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) Dcit, Central Circle 1, Vs. Indian Potash Limited, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 23 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 10.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.88,67,868/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Pos Machine. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.70,55,840/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Sap License. 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,71,46,262/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Bad Debt Claimed On Which The Company Is Not Eligible For Taking The Benefit Of Claiming Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Norms Set By The Ministry Of Chemical & Fertilizers.”

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

Indian Potash Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4113/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarindian Potash Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 1, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) Dcit, Central Circle 1, Vs. Indian Potash Limited, 1St Floor, Seethakathi Business Centre, New Delhi. 684 – 690, Anna Salai Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 (Tamil Nadu). (Pan : Aaaci0888H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akshat Jain, Ca Shri Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 23 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 10.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.88,67,868/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Pos Machine. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.70,55,840/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation Claimed On Sap License. 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.9,71,46,262/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Excess Bad Debt Claimed On Which The Company Is Not Eligible For Taking The Benefit Of Claiming Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Subsidy By The Government Of India For Violation Of Norms Set By The Ministry Of Chemical & Fertilizers.”

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)