Section 26A of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 26A is CIT v. Lanco Industries Ltd. (242 ITR 357), cited in 9 of the 40 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 26A

CIT v. Lanco Industries Ltd.
242 ITR 357 · 2000 · High Court
9
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 26A

Agarwal and Co vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2200/1968Supreme Court07 Apr 1970

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 2(9)Section 4

Daffadar Bhagat Singh & Sons vs. The Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, Ferozepore

CIVIL APPEAL No. 962/1966Supreme Court22 Aug 1968

Bench: 2 Judges

S. Sankappa Amd Others vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle II, Bangalore

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1664/1967Supreme Court14 Dec 1967

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 111

Income-Tax Officer, Agra vs. Radha Krishan

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1413/1966Supreme Court27 Apr 1967

Bench: 2 Judges

Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, M. P. Nagpur and Bhandara, Nagpur

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1058/1965Supreme Court28 Oct 1966

Bench: 3 Judges

O. Rm. M. Sp. Sv. Firm vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax-Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 751/1965Supreme Court14 Oct 1966

Bench: 3 Judges

Commissioner of Lncome-Tax, Gujarat vs. Kantilal Nathuchand Sami

CIVIL APPEAL No. 676/1965Supreme Court11 Oct 1966

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 23(5)

Commissioner 01'' Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcuita vs. Juggilal Kamalapat

CIVIL APPEAL No. 127/1966Supreme Court07 Oct 1966

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 26A

Sir Hukumchand & Mannalal Co vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh

In the result, we answer the question propounded for the

CIVIL APPEAL No. 223/1965Supreme Court04 Jan 1966

Bench: 3 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab vs. M/S. Chander Bhan Harbhajan Lal

CIVIL APPEAL No. 605/1963Supreme Court04 Jan 1966

Bench: 3 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. Shah Mohandas Sadhuram

The appeals are dismissed with costs, one set of hearing fees

CIVIL APPEAL No. 144/1964Supreme Court15 Apr 1965

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 26

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. Bagyalakshmi & Co., Udamalpet

In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1099/1963Supreme Court04 Nov 1964

Bench: 3 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad vs. A. Abdul Rahim & Co., Baroda

In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the answer

CIVIL APPEAL No. 982/1963Supreme Court04 Nov 1964

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 16A

N. T. Patel and Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 424/1960Supreme Court13 Mar 1961

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 26A

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. M/S. Dwarkadas Khetan & Co

The appeal is allowed with costs here and in the

CIVIL APPEAL No. 328/1959Supreme Court01 Dec 1960

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 26ASection 30

Messrs. R. C. Mitter & Sons vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta

In the result, I agree that the appeals should be dis-

CIVIL APPEAL No. 85/1957Supreme Court15 Apr 1959

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 26A

Y. Narayana Chetty & Another vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Nellore and Others

CIVIL APPEAL No. 317/1957Supreme Court15 Oct 1958

Bench: 3 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. M/S. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co

CIVIL APPEAL No. 128/1955Supreme Court28 Apr 1958

Bench: 3 Judges

M. K. Venkatachalam, I. T. O. and Another vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co., Ltd

The appeal is allowed with

CIVIL APPEAL No. 122/1956Supreme Court28 Apr 1958

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 1

Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs. The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax

CIVIL APPEAL No. 145/1953Supreme Court25 Oct 1954

Bench: 5 Judges

Section 10Section 2(5)Section 21Section 5Section 66(1)