“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)

Rajesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2), Gaya

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

ITA 171/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271FSection 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

Tinich Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Bastii vs. ITO, Basti

ITA 295/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar, D.Rs

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.294 & 295/LKW/2023 Assessment Year

Tinich Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

ITA 294/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar, D.Rs

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.294 & 295/LKW/2023 Assessment Year

Shri Nityanand Pandey, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

Pandey. 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

Nalini Mahendra Thacker, Mumbai vs. ITO- 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4881/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Ld. Sr. DR

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

wherein it has been held as under: “That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply hi- mind to all the issues, which arise from the impugned order before him, whether

Asha Himmat Bhadra, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4764/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra, Dcit – Circle 32(1) 401 Beach Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, Balraj Sahani Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Novotel Hotel, Vs. Bandra (East) Juhu, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai Maharashtra– 400 051 Maharashtra – 400 049 Pan: Aabpb7076J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Though In The Instant Case, Both The Parties Have Filed Adjournment Applications, However, This Court Observes That The Impugned Order Is An Ex-Parte & Therefore It Would Be Appropriate To Dismiss The Adjournment Requests & To Proceed With The Case To Decide The Same. Thus, The Adjournments Requests Are Declined & Case Is Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

wherein it has been held under: “That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply hi- mind to all the issues, which arise from the impugned order before him, whether