“Section 251(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(1)929 judgments

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)

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.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court

278

citing judgments

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.

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. Sardari Lal & Co.

251 ITR 864 · 2001 · High Court

240

citing judgments

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.

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.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court

186

citing judgments

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).

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.

Judgments citing Section 251(1)

Nisha Data Com Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

ITA 174/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. … Powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) "Section 251(1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers — (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm ... stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance

Nisha Data Com Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

ITA 173/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

M/S. Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 80I

eligible units to the ineligible units: (d) erred in not appreciating that unlike the powers of enhancement of the CITI(A) under Section 251(1)(a) which, inter alia, extend to "enhance.....the assessment", the powers of the Dispute Resolution Panel, under section 144C(8) enhancing the "variations" proposed

Satbichar Distributors Private Limited, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 448/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

E Ms Electicals & Enginerrs P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ciecle9(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1943/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 194CSection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as per section 250(4) of the Act. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment

Mr. Sateesh Laxman Huded, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1264/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Sateesh Laxman Huded Vs Ito Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai 315/316, Hilton Centre, Plot Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station No.66, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Navi Mumbai-400 614 Mumbai-400 703 Pan: Abbph9376E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Parmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

that the impugned assessment order was passed ex parte, and that the Ld. CIT(A), by exercising powers conferred through the amendment to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act, effective from 01.10.2024, was empowered to set aside an assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act. He supported ... under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), in exercise of powers under the amended provisions of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act, has rightly set aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, we observe that

Shruthi Kishore, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 550/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Upadhya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69ASection 80T

powers of the ld. CIT(A) are . Page 10 of 11 now confined to confirming, reducing, enhancing, or annulling the assessment under section 251(1) of the Act. Therefore, the direction of the learned CIT(A) to set aside the issue for fresh assessment is beyond his jurisdiction

Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 867/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.867/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nalinkant Shyamshanker The Ito बनाम/ Pandya Ward-1 V/S. Ramji Mandir Tekra Godhra – 389 001 Narmada Mandir Chandod, Dabhoi Vadodara – 391 105 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adupp 6004 C (अपीलाथ+/ Appellant) (&, यथ+/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/02/2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2019 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

direction of the Ld. CIT(A) setting aside the matter was in accordance with the power vested upon him under the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. The ground of the assessee is dismissed

Sujata Mahendra Nawander, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 3, Jalna

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

ITA 1568/PUN/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sujata Mahendra Nawander, V The Income Tax Officer, 19, Manmohan Vidya Nagar, S Ward-3, Jalna. Mantha Road, Jalna-431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeppn7756M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshit S Kabra – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-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

Babusingh Bhimsingh Rajpurohit, Pune vs. I, T.O Ward-9(3), Pune

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

ITA 1479/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1479/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Babusingh Bhimsingh V The Income Tax Officer, Rajpurohit, S Ward-9(3), Pune. Srv No.13, Op.Santosh Mangal Karyalaya, Near 16 No.Bus Stop, Thergaon, Pune – 411033. Mahrashtra. Pan: Aarpr6622G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on ITA No.1479/PUN/2025 [A] account of non-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

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

opportunity. Therefore, by following the principles of natural justice, the assessment made by the AO is hereby set aside as per proviso of Section 251 (1)(a) of the IT Act which is applicable from 01.10.2024 onwards which reads as follows:- In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)shall ... para 3(b) of 28 Vinita Bajoria vs. ITO the said order the Ld. CIT(A) has invoked the provisions of proviso to section 251(1)(a) which is reproduced as under: "Powers of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals). 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal

Shakeel Abdul Azeez Mohammad, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1115/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1115/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shakeel Abdul Azeez V The Income Tax Officer, Mohammad, S Ward-1(1), Jalgaon. Kachchi Chawl, Indira Nagar, Shahu Nagar, Jalgaon-425001. Maharashtra. Pan: Byfpm1596K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay V Kawdia – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 131/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Vs. Ito, 1, Bajar Faliya, Valod, At & Po – Ward – 1, Talod, Tal – Tapi, Tapi – 394640, Bardoli Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amzpd6196K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 274Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, learned CTT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal instead of invoking the provision of Section 251(1)(a) enacted by the finance Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which empower the CIT(A)/NFAC cases where assessment order was passed as best judgement case

Sudhir Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 644/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh and Shri Anuj Musaddi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha &

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Swami Shanti Prakash Ashram Trust, Thane

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

ITA 1488/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

Ld.CIT(A) remitted the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment in light of amendment made in section 251(1)(a) which is conceived. Section 251(1)(a) of the Act provides that “In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), in an appeal against

Ratilal Karmshi Patel, Satara vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

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

ITA 1399/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1399/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ratilal Karmshi Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, D-70, Midc, Taswade, S. Ward-1, Satara. Umbraj, Taluka Karad, District Satara – 415109. Maharashtra. Pan: Abppp6230R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramchandran – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 668/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Vinod Gupta, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhunjhunu

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 259/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251(1)

issued to the assessee-appellant under first proviso to section 144 of the Act, but he failed to furnish any response. Proviso to section 251(1) of the Act stipulates that where the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) is against an order of assessment made under section ... furnish reply to show cause notice dated 28.4.2023 issued for 4.5.2023, and as such CIT(A) was empowered to exercise powers under section 251(1) of the Act in case of assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act. 9. As is available from the assessment order dated

Malani Holdings Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 316/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 316/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen GoyalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in remanding the matter to the assessing officer as per proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act and failed to adjudicate on legal ground as well as on merits of the case as raised before him. 6. That ... bother to looked into such facts and had very conveniently restore the matter to the file of Ld. AO following the provisions of section 251(1) of the Act. Under such 10 Malani Holdings Private Limited vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur circumstances, the order

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajpur Road vs. Mohd. Waseem, Mohalla Pathanpura Beriyan

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1/DDN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 144BSection 251(1)

fresh assessment as per provision of law by exercising the power conferred in 2 ACIT Vs. MohdWaseem the proviso to Section 251(1) (a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Department of Revenue preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted