← All Phrases

“Section 249(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(2)529 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 249(2) is Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr (398 ITR 250), cited in 291 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(2)

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others
167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

National Textiles v. CIT
249 ITR 125 · 2001 · High Court
134
citing judgments

The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires material evidence that the assessed amount does not represent the assessee's income and proof of conscious concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A penalty cannot be sustained merely because income is assessed on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment.

Director of Income Tax v. Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
323 ITR 249 · 2010 · High Court
128
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act after the assessee files a return in response to a Section 148 notice and scrutinizes that return.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India
257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.
104 ITD 149 · 2007 · ITAT
118
citing judgments

A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

CIT v. Veekay Lal Investments Co. Pvt. Ltd.
249 ITR 597 · 2001 · High Court
99
citing judgments

Book profits under Section 115JB must include income by way of capital gains, similar to how total income is calculated under Section 45.

CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd.
249 ITR 47 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Income from letting out immovable property, even with ancillary services, is taxable as 'Income from House Property' if the dominant intention is to exploit the property itself, not to run a complex business providing integrated services. The classification depends on the assessee's primary object in exploiting the property.

Judgments citing Section 249(2)

Mr. Zuzer Fakruddin Motorwala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above

ITA 5667/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarzuzer Fakruddin V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward– Motorwala बनाम 30(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, C- Gala No. 21, 242, Jahangir 41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Boman Behram Marg, Kurla Complex, Bandra Husseini Lakda Bazar, (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Bellasis Road, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400008, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpm5636M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Mathuria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary (Sr.DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 249(2)

Fakruddin Motorwala beyond his control. The ld.CIT(A) observed that the appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2) of the Act on receipt of the assessment order. Therefore, the contention of the appellant was found to be without any substance ... cause for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. Hence, the appeal having not been filed within prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the Act, it was not admitted and the appeal was dismissed in limine. 4. Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the same contentions