Section 288 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 288 is Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (171 ITR 634), cited in 99 of the 58 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 288

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT
171 ITR 634 · 1988 · High Court
99
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's power to direct a special audit under Section 142(2A) requires an objective assessment of account complexity, not subjective satisfaction. Accounts are 'complex' only if they are genuinely difficult to understand, and the AO must first make a genuine attempt to comprehend them before ordering a special audit.

M/s Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. v. ACIT
338 ITR 643 · 2011 · High Court
40
citing judgments

For the purpose of Section 80IA relief, the sale of power is not a criterion for granting relief. Captive consumption of power must be valued at market price, and classification of units as saleable or non-saleable is irrelevant for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd.
81 Taxmann.com 189 · 2017 · High Court
22
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report in Form 10CCB before the due date for claiming deductions under Section 80-IB(11A) is directory, not mandatory. Therefore, a claim for deduction cannot be denied solely because the report was not uploaded on or before the due date for furnishing the audit report.

Sutures India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
125 Taxmann.com 226 · 2021 · High Court
9
citing judgments
ITO v. Novelty Garments
256 ITR 688 · 2007 · High Court
9
citing judgments
CIT Vs. Berger Paints (No.2) 254 ITR 503, CIT v. Krishnan Nair
353 ITR 679 · 2013 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Little Angels Education Society v. Union of India
127 Taxmann.com 473 · 2021 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Limited (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC) and Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax
453 ITR 625 · 2023 · Supreme Court
4
citing judgments
(a) Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. v. ACIT
49 Taxmann.com 174 · 2014 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 288

SURESH KUMAR PATI,JAJPUR vs. ITO, JAJPUR, JAJPUR ROAD, JAJPUR

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

ITA 423/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 423/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Suresh Kumar Pati Vs Ito, Jajpur C/O:- Ashok Sharma Pati, Plot No:- 1654,At:- Basudebapur, P.O:- Jahanpur, Devidwar, Jajpur, 755007 Pan No. : Alwpp 3032 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 21/12/2023 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10856/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing The Ld. Ar Was Asked What His Qualification Were & He Has Submitted That He Is Only A Final Year Student Of Ca, As He Is Not Entitled Into Appear As An Authorized Representative Under The Provisions Of Section 288 Of The Income Tax Act His Submission Are Not Being Taken On Record & His Presence Is Not Being Taken On Record For This Proceedings. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Sr. Dr That The Assessment Orders As Also The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Were Exparte Orders. It Was Fairly Agreed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 288

Showing 120 of 58 · Page 1 of 3