“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)

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 654/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 653/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 652/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Kavita Budhia, Near Maa Sharda Hospital Ring Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 171/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 171/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

M/S Gulzar-Moksh(Jv), Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur, Bastar

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

ITA 166/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.166/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Gulzar-Moksh (Jv) Gulzar Niwas, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur (C.G)-494 001 Pan: Aanfg4916A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250(4)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Spin Packaging Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 165/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 165/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Asif Ali, Nawagarh Ambikapur vs. ITO Ward 1 Ambikapur, Kharasiya Road Ambikapur

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

ITA 159/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.159/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asif Ali Nawagarh Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G)-497 001 Pan: Aoypa3486J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Hearing

Lokesh Kumar Nayak, Mahasamund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 149/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.149/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Lokesh Kumar Nayak Ward No.12, Thakurdiya Khurd Masamund (C.G.)-493 551 Pan: Baypn3445D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Saurabh Jayant Bhaga, Raigad Panvel vs. ITO Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2718/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

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

Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, Panvel Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Panvel

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

ITA 2717/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Power Mech Infra Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 201/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'बी' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Shyam Sunder Gupta, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 168/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 150Section 150(1)Section 153(3)(ii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251(2)Section 41(1)

which amounts to enhancement of income and such enhancement of income is impermissible in view of the specific provisions of section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs.13,26,600/- under ... income by making further disallowance of Rs.8,94,690/- under the head packing expenses without giving the assessee any opportunity as provided under section 251(2) of the Act, the : enhancement of income is contrary to the provisions of law and be deleted. 11. Because the CIT(A) has erred

S R Automobiles, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1269/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Progressive Shelters Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3416/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 69A

determination including each ground of appeal. 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 Ld. CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues arisen from the 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 is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose

Kailas Genbhau Kalekar, Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(3), Pune

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

ITA 2685/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2685/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kailas Genbhau Kalekar, V The Dcit, (Prop. Bhairavnath Milk S Central Circle-2(3), Pune. Processors), At Post – Kadus Taluka – Khed, Dist-Pune – 412404. Pan: Ccmpk1533J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora & Sampada Ingale – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amil Khairnar –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 28.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 250Section 251(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Vahan Motors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 160/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Electronica Finance Limited, Pune vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2629/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2629/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Electronica Finance Limited, V The Dcit, “Audumber”, 101/1, S Circle-1(1), Pune. Erandwane, Dr.Ketkar Road, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aaace4577B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Rakesh Kumar, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 140/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 140/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

Mohammed Imran Patni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 61/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Mohammed Imran Patni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 60/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C