← All Phrases

“Section 253(1)(d)”

Section References (mined)Section 253Section 253(1)(d)17 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 253(1)(d) is Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (104 ITD 149), cited in 118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 253(1)(d)

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. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.
246 ITR 568 · 2000 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.
389 ITR 70 · 2016 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Ad-hoc transfer pricing adjustments are not justified if the Transfer Pricing Officer fails to apply one of the prescribed methods under Section 92C. The arm's length nature of international transactions, including intra-group services and management fees, should be determined through a detailed FAR analysis and benchmarking study.

Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya v. CIT
119 Taxmann.com 383 · 2020 · Supreme Court
45
citing judgments

The Supreme Court dismisses appeals seeking condonation of excessive delay in filing, especially when the reasons provided for the delay, such as attributing it to an employee, are not found to be sufficient or convincing.

CIT v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd.
80 Taxmann.com 337 · 2017 · High Court
26
citing judgments

A transfer pricing adjustment is not sustainable if the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has not followed any of the prescribed methods for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). Specifically, setting the ALP to Nil without adhering to the methods under section 92C is impermissible.

Royal Stitches (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
156 Taxmann.com 361 · 2023 · High Court
19
citing judgments

A High Court refuses to condone a significant delay in filing an appeal when the assessee fails to provide a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The court emphasizes that assessees must be vigilant in pursuing their rights.

Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation
253 ITR 593 · 2002 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Where only a part of a trust's income is diverted in contravention of Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d), only that diverted portion of the income is taxable, not the entire income. This means tax should be levied on the relevant income or a part of it, potentially at the maximum marginal rate, rather than denying exemption under Section 11 for the entire income.

CIT v. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
213 ITR 677 · 1995 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not considered co-operative societies for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, cannot claim deductions on interest income earned from them.

Judgments citing Section 253(1)(d)

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 381/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Global Solutions Limited ("NCR GSL" or "the Company" or "the Appellant") respectfully craves, leave to prefer an appeal under Section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against final assessment order dated 9 June 2022 ("impugned order") (received by the Company on 10 June 2022) issued

Erm India Private Limited, Gurugram vs. Assessment Unit (Jao- DCIT, Circle 7(1), Delhi)

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5459/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5459/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Erm India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Building No.10, Vs. Income Tax Department, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, (Jurisdictional Ao: Deputy Gurugram, Haryana. Commissioner Of Income-Tax), Pan No.Aaace1502C Circle 7(1), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 92B

amount resulted thereon. 1.1 The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned order and has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: - “Appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the order dated 28th September 2024, passed by the Assessment

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1885/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NCR Global Solutions Limited ("Appellant) respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), against final assessment order dated 02:01 2025 ("Impugned Order) issued under section 143(3) read with

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

Taxation) - 4(2)(1), Mumbai ('the AO') which was received by the Appellant on 21 July 2022. The said appeal is filed under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

Taxation) - 4(2)(1), Mumbai ('the AO') which was received by the Appellant on 21 July 2022. The said appeal is filed under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without

Panda Srinivas, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

ITA 682/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

order passed after incorporation of the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel lies with the Honourbale Appellate Tribunal. The relevant provisions of sub section 253(1)(d) is reproduced as under: "Section 253(1)(d) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (d) an order passed by the Assessing Officer under ... therefore, an appeal against the said order was maintainable before the Tribunal and not before him. For the sake of clarity, Section 253(1)(d) of the Act, which contemplates that the appeal against the order passed by the A.O. under sub-section (3) of Section 143 or Section

Ucweb Mobile Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit, Inocome Tax Department, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Appellant respectfully craves, leave to prefer an appeal under Section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against final assessment order dated 27.06.2024 ("Impugned Order") issued under Section 43(3) read with Section

Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Private Limited, Punjab vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1201/CHANDI/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1201/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Shrma, CIT, D.R. (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 153(1)Section 253(1)(d)

appeal taken by the assessee are as under: “Centrient Pharmaceutical India Private Limited ('Appellant') respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), against assessment order dated 25 October 2024 ("impugned order") passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

Gallagher Service Center LLP (Formerly Known As Gallagher Operations Support Services P Ltd), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the Ground Number 6 is Partly Allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 679/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gallagher Services Center V Additional/Joint Llp, S Commissioner Of Income 401, Delta 2, Gigaspace It Tax. Park, Vimannagar, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaqfg7417F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.P.Lohia – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Of Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 15.07.2022 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 253(1)(d)

following grounds of appeal : “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1)(d) ITA No.679/PUN/2022 [A] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the order dated 15 July 2022 (received

Nga Hr (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit (Jao - DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai)

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed infructuous

ITA 5777/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 253(1)(d)Section 92(3)Section 92C

final assessment order dated 30/09/2024 passed by assessment unit for assessment year 2021-22 on following grounds of appeal: “Appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). against the order dated September 30, 2024 (received on September 30, 2024), passed

Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 4540/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 253(1)(d)Section 270ASection 274

case, Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TD Singapore' or 'the Appellant') respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated 20 October 2023 passed by the Deputy

Skybridge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, (Tp)-2 Hyderbad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 154Section 253(1)(d)Section 270A

d) for non-compliance with notices were initiated separately. 3. The Registry has objected that the present appeal is not maintainable as per section 253(1)(d) of the Act. In the present case, AO has passed draft assessment order on 22/11/2023. Against that draft assessment order, assessee ... order dt.22.11.2023 4. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee falls within the ambit of Section 253(1)(d) of the Act and it was submitted that the draft assessment order passed by the AO was in pursuance of the directions issued

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT(International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the application for stay on the recovery of outstanding demand filed by the applicant/assessee is dismissed

ITA 4615/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, American Chemical Vs. The Deputy Society, C/O Deloitte Commissioner Of Income Haskins & Sells Llp, Tax, (It), Circle -1(1)(1), 7Th Floor, Building 10, Room No. 17, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Mittal Court, 22 Nariman Complex, Dlf City Phase- Point, Mumbai Ii, Gurgaon – 122002 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No:Aalca4959L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 234ASection 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

Panel under section 144(C(5) of the Act issued on 21/09/2023. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “Appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the order dated 30 October 2023, passed by the Deputy

Amadeus India Pvt Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 723/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(1)(d)

subject matter of action u/s 154) has been passed pursuant to directions of DRP the present appeal is maintainable as per provisions of section 253(1)(d). 2. In the impugned order passed u/s 154 of the Act, AO has enhanced the component of AMP expenditure

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1521/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

with variance in figures. ITA no.1521/Mum./2022 Assessment Year : 2018–19 3. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: “Appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the order dated 20 April 2022 (received on 21 April ... ./2022 and 1520/Mum./2022 ITA no.1520/Mum./2022 Assessment Year : 2019–20 19. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “Appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the order dated 20 April 2022 (received on 21 April

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1520/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

with variance in figures. ITA no.1521/Mum./2022 Assessment Year : 2018–19 3. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: “Appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the order dated 20 April 2022 (received on 21 April ... ./2022 and 1520/Mum./2022 ITA no.1520/Mum./2022 Assessment Year : 2019–20 19. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “Appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the order dated 20 April 2022 (received on 21 April

Ksb Ltd. (Earlier Known As "Ksb Pumps Ltd."), Pune vs. The Dy CIT, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

earlier known as 'KSB Pumps Limited') (hereinafter referred to as 'KSB India' or 'the Appellant'} respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the order dated 22 April 2021 (received by the Appellant