← 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)

Mr. Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1803/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1803/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, V The Income Tax Officer, Ayodhya Nagar, S Ward-2(1), Jalgaon. Varangaon-425307. Pan: Acwpj1153H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Ao & Confirmed By The Id. Cit(A). Nfac, Is Bad & Void Ab Initio & Also Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 144Section 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

Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, Satana vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1322/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, V The Income Tax Officer, Dongrej Virgaon, Satana, S Ward-1, Malegaon. Dist-Nashik, Nashik – 423301. Pan: Anmpk4805E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2012-13 Dated 24.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 22,94,000/-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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

Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1257/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1257/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pathsanstha Limited, S Ward-1, Kolhapur. 2832B Ward Yamula Devalaya Najik Karveer, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaqas6598A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.11.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 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

Jai Matadi Enterprise, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Hem Lal Sahu, Raipur vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 473/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.473/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hem Lal Sahu Ram Nagar, Gali No.4, Shitla Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Egpps3559K

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

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

Asif Nazir Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(4), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 986/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Asif Najir Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(4) Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 985/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Nilesh Rameshchandra Sarvaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 3164/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

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

Nimantran Restaurant Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1331/M/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1332/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69

observing and holding 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 his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him, whether

Nimantran Restaurant Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1331/M/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1331/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69

observing and holding 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 his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him, whether

Rajendra Kumar Sapre, Bilaspur vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 482/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.482/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Sapre, Ward No.7, Shiwa Chowk, Post-Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Cqips0419R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 249Section 249(3)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

Starpoint Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 340/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

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

Deepak Chhabra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Delhi

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

ITA 979/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 254Section 271ASection 69A

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/her 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 for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose

India Construction, Diamond Harbour vs. ITO, Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2592/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)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

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 906/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

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

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 905/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

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

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 783/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

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

Travelport Holiday (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(30)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2411/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2411/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Travelport Holiday (India) Pvt. Ltd. 316, Woodrow Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 Pan : Aabcv1143P

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 234ASection 5Section 69A

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

Boppana Ashok Kumar, Gannavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

ITA 392/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1270/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक