“Section 251(1)”
The decision most relied on for Section 251(1) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 251(1)
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.
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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.
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.
An appellate authority cannot introduce a new source of income that was not considered by the Assessing Officer; taxability of new sources should be addressed through reassessment provisions like Section 147/148 or revision under Section 263.
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.
The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).
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.
