← All Phrases

“Section 251(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(2)645 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 251(2) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 251(2)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT
251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court
253
citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.
326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court
196
citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

CIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank
251 ITR 194 · 2001 · Supreme Court
106
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative bank from statutory investments or mandatory deposits, which are essential for conducting its banking business, qualifies as business income and is exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.
98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court
104
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

Judgments citing Section 251(2)

Eclerx Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4314/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4314/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Eclerx Services Limited Unit No.401, 4Th Office Level, Building No.11, Serene Properties Pvt. Ltd. Sez Mind, Thane, Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 708 Pan : Aaace7932L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Hdfc Limited Which in Turn Was A Successor to Hdfc Investments Li, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4208/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4208/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Hdfc Bank Limited (Successor To Hdfc Limited Which In Turn Was A Successor To Hdfc Investments Limited) Hdfc Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaach2702H/Aaach1462L

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 80G

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT

Merrmax Software and Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4087/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4087/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Merrmax Software & Systems Private Limited C/O. Veeta Legal Services, 7 Raheja Centre, Ground Floor, Fpj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan : Aaecm2026K

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Makwana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

Mangalam Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(2), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 166/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.166/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Mangalam Developers Shop No.38, Plot No.17/18, Gautam Complex, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai Pan : Aatfm2007L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 3Section 43C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

Herald Publications Pvt. Ltd, Panaji vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 160/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 160/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Herald Publication Pvt. Ltd. Ag-6, Campal Trade Centre, Opp. Taj Vivanta, H/H Mili, Panaji, Goa-403001 Pan : Aaach4580K . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Sanket Deshmukh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 371(1)Section 43B

NFAC in view of prescription of Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act was required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised in form

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

issued notice u/s 251(2) of I.Tax Act as this finding is amount to enhancement of assessment/tax liability. The provisions of section 251(2) as stood for the assessment years under consideration is as under:­ “2) The Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce

Tirupur South Rotary Charitable Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1553/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1553/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Tirupur South Rotary Charitable Trust, Assistant Commissioner Of South Rotary Hall, Income Tax (Exemptions), Opp Nataraja Theatre, Tirupur, Coimbatore. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 604. [Pan: Aaett0308E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Bhupendran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

No.1553 /Chny/2025 enhancement provided for in section 251(1)(a) of the Act without prescribing to the mandatory prescription under section 251(2) of giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5874/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and he is obliged to dispose

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5873/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and he is obliged to dispose

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5872/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and he is obliged to dispose

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5871/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and he is obliged to dispose

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5870/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and he is obliged to dispose

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5869/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and he is obliged to dispose

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5868/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and he is obliged to dispose

Doctor Bawitlung Zothankima, Aizawl vs. DCIT, Silchar

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

principle, justified in enhancing the income of the assessee especially since a show cause notice was also given within the provisions of section 251(2) of the Act. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that the assessee is covered under the provisions of section

Ahamad Bin Mubarak Chauose, Nanded vs. ITO, Ward (1), Nanded

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1545/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ahamad Bin Mubarak V The Income Tax Officer, Chauose, S Ward-(1), Nanded. H.No.1-7-1349, Peerburhan Nagar, Nanded – 431506. Maharashtra. Pan: Alzpc8261D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Kanpur Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.10.2024 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 250Section 44A

prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether

Pallishri Samabaya Krishi Unanyan Samity Limited, Coochbehar vs. I.T.O., Ward 2.1, Coochbehar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether

Riddhi Agro Industries, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 458/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.458/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Riddhi Agro Industries Telghaninaka Overbridge, Annapurna Complex, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aakfr3802M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Sushma Singh, Baikunthpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Manendragarh

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

ITA 388/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.388/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sushma Singh H No. 17/1, Baisagarpara, Baikunthpur, Koriya (C.G.)-497 335 Pan: Dyrps4354H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahendragarh ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

ITA 360/RPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply dear from the Section 251(l)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to at the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether