← All Phrases

“Section 250(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 250Section 250(5)35 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 250(5) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 250(5)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
447 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) must be filed before the bench with territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer's location or the assessee's principal place of business.

247 ITR 305 (Guj) CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
140 ITR 832 · 1983 · High Court
172
citing judgments

An employer is not in default under section 201 if they have made a bona fide estimate of employee income and deducted tax at source based on that estimate.

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.
153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court
171
citing judgments

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

Judgments citing Section 250(5)

DCIT, Circle-1(1)-Exemption, New Delhi vs. Hamdard Laboratories (India), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Gadhethariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-3 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 117/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2017-18 Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1) Gadhethariya Rajkot. Flat B/21, Copper Elegance Nr.Ambika Township, Mavdi Police Ground Rajkot, Gujarat Pan : Ahwpg 7174 J

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessee while passing appellate order and outrightly accepted the finding of the AO. In this regard, it is to be noted that section 250(5) clearly provides the order of the ld.CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination ... reason for the decision. Therefore, we find the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) is not in consonance with provisions of section 250(5) of the Act, which require the ld.CIT(A) to pass a speaking order. No doubt on the face of the record, it suggests that the assessee

DCIT, C-7, Jaipur vs. Bharat Mohan Raturi, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt

Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2487/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250(5)

dismissed this ground as unadmitted by observing as under :- “2.2 I have considered the application for admitting additional ground. Section 250(5) provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, at the hearing of an appeal, allow the appellant to go into any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Maharashtra vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 445/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

admitted fact that the claim was neither made in the Rol nor claimed before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. Section 250(5), which empowers the CIT(A) to admit additional grounds reads as under- "(5) The Commissioner (Appeals)] may, at the hearing of an appeal, allow the appellant

M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

admitted fact that the claim was neither made in the Rol nor claimed before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. Section 250(5), which empowers the CIT(A) to admit additional grounds reads as under- "(5) The Commissioner (Appeals)] may, at the hearing of an appeal, allow the appellant

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order ... admitting the additional ground of appeal. He submitted that additional ground of appeal could only be admitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 250 (5) of the Act, which has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A). ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order ... admitting the additional ground of appeal. He submitted that additional ground of appeal could only be admitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 250 (5) of the Act, which has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A). ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order ... admitting the additional ground of appeal. He submitted that additional ground of appeal could only be admitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 250 (5) of the Act, which has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A). ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order ... admitting the additional ground of appeal. He submitted that additional ground of appeal could only be admitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 250 (5) of the Act, which has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A). ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order ... admitting the additional ground of appeal. He submitted that additional ground of appeal could only be admitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 250 (5) of the Act, which has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A). ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961. b. Claim was not verified by the learned Assessing Officer as the same was not discussed in the order ... admitting the additional ground of appeal. He submitted that additional ground of appeal could only be admitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 250 (5) of the Act, which has been dealt with by the learned CIT (A). ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1806/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

exercise the same if the facts and circumstances justify. 9. In Smt. Mohindar Kaur Vs Central Govt. (1976) 104 ITR 120”, “Section 250(5) confers power upon Ld. CIT(A) to permit the appellant to raise a fresh point which has not been even touched by rule 46A. The Court

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1802/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

exercise the same if the facts and circumstances justify. 9. In Smt. Mohindar Kaur Vs Central Govt. (1976) 104 ITR 120”, “Section 250(5) confers power upon Ld. CIT(A) to permit the appellant to raise a fresh point which has not been even touched by rule 46A. The Court

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

ITA 2469/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Breach Candy Vs. Dcit, Cc5(3) Swimming Bath Trust Room No. 1906, 19Th 66, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Air India Bldg, Road, Breach Candy, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0133F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah & Shri.Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Passed U/Sec144 R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Act (A.Y.2014-15) & U/Sec 143(3)R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (A.Y.2015-16). Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical & Inter Connected, Hence Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

For Appellant: Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah &
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE