← 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)

Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(4) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1872/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1871 & 1872/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil V The Income Tax Officer, Mills Limited, S Ward-2(4), Pune. 43, Nav Maharashtra House, Near Shaniwar Wada, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaacn9941J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune Dated 27.07.2022 & 20.11.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 250(6)Section 92B

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

Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Pune

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

ITA 1871/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1871 & 1872/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil V The Income Tax Officer, Mills Limited, S Ward-2(4), Pune. 43, Nav Maharashtra House, Near Shaniwar Wada, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaacn9941J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune Dated 27.07.2022 & 20.11.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 250(6)Section 92B

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

Sachin Shankar Agnihotri, Wardha vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 155/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 251(1)(a)Section 270A

enhanced by the learned CIT(A) to 25% on his own without bringing on record any notice for enhancement as required under section 251(2) of the Act and thus such action is unsustainable and hence quashed to the extent of increase in the rate of gross profit. Accordingly

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1123/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A

Husain Kohawala, Kukshi Distt. Dhar vs. Commissioner of Appeal, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihusain Kohawala, Cit (A), Saifiya Marg Bohra Mohalla, Nfac, Near Macchi Darwaza, Delhi Kukshi, Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkrpk6392P Assessee By Shri Parag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 69A

given any show cause notice prior to making this addition which is in the nature of enhancement of assessment. The provisions of Section 251(2) clearly put a condition that the CIT(A) shall not enhance the assessment unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of show cause against

Kasree Devi, Mawana Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(3), Ayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 250Section 250(4)Section 69A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Therefore, the appellant was issued show cause notice on 29-12-2023 as per provisions of section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant furnished reply on 03- 01- 2024. The appellant mainly argued

Unisys Softwares and Holding Ind. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 43/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

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

Manju Devi Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 273/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 251Section 251(2)Section 271(1)Section 274

that allows the ld. CIT(A) to improve the case of the Assessing Officer and that too without complying to Section 251(2) i.e. without providing a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction.’’ It is also submitted that this additional ground is purely a legal ground

Vimladevi Agrotech Limited, Kota vs. ACIT, WD -1(2), Kota

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

ITA 1065/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

nonprosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear 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 all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether

Ramesh Gupta, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(4), Delhi

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

ITA 930/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

including each ground of appeal. Moreover, 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/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before ... 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 CIT is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose

Taiki Hayashi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-71(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3138/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69A

including each ground of appeal. Moreover, 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/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before ... 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 CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose

Tejas Transcom (P) Ltd., Burdwan West vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Durgapur

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

ITA 1387/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

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

Blue Star Building Material Pvt. Ltd., Uran Panvel vs. ACIT Circle Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 1066/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 80

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

Giasuddin Shaikh, Murshidabad vs. ACIT, Circle - 42, Murshidabad

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

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

Ruturaj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1418/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1418/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ruturaj Cooperative Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Pune. Housing Society Ltd., S. No.692/A-2, Ruturaj Society, Satara Road, Pune- 411037. Pan : Aaatr1116L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Interest Income On Deposits Of Rs13,23,708/- Of Jain Mandir Which Has Overriding Title In Favour Of Jain Mandir & Thus Does Not Partake The Character Of Income In The Hands Of The Appellant. 2. The Ld Clt(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Issue Is Decided By Cit (Appeal) 4 For Ay 2008-09 & 2010-11 In Favour Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Archana Baid, Silchar, Assam vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Manish Pugalia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

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

Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

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

Vipra Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivmoga

ITA 1348/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member

For Appellant: Shri Vivek A.R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 251(2)Section 57Section 80Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Vipra Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivmoga

ITA 1347/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member

For Appellant: Shri Vivek A.R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 251(2)Section 57Section 80Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K