“Section 251(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)1,012 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 251(1)(a) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a)

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)(a)

Sundararaman Jayaraman Iyer, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1390/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1390/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

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

M/S Sikar Zilla Welfare Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Sikar Zilla Welfare Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward 1(3), Exempt 1A, Sikar Bhawan, Vs. Ashutosh Dey Lane, Kolkata-400071 Kolkata-700006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts3808D Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gautam Patra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Patra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 39(1)

still when the issue came before ld. CIT(A) who also possesses co-terminus power with that of A.O and as per section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) in disposing the appeal against order of assessment has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul

Rajendra Pandurang Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1384/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1384/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

M/S. Victor Commercial Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1127/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Victor Commercial Co. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Ltd., Kolkata, C/O. M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs Co., 7, C.R., Avenue, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Kolkata - 700072 Bypass, Kolkata - 700017 (Pan: Aabcv0011C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S. Jhajaria, ARFor Respondent: Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. (6A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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

Liyakat Appalal Pathan, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1361/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1361/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Shreenath Developers, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 909/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 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 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

Uday Damodar Bajaj, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani Math, Nashik vs. Officer of the Income Tax, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uday Damodar Bajaj, V The Income Tax Officer, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Math, Dhammagiri Road, Varachi Peth, Igatpuri – 422403. Pan: Ahypb2584P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 19.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “The Appellant, Aggrieved By The Order Passed By Ld. Additional / Joint Cit(A) - 7, Kolkata U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 19.04.2024 Preferred This Uday Damodar Bajaj [A]

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270FSection 271ASection 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 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

Bhushan Radhakishan Chechani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-3 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1340/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1340/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Radhakrishan Chechnai, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.B-56, Sector C-N-4, S Ward-1, Jalna. Cidco, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aappc5074R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjeevkuamr B Kabra – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A), Gwalior Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 28.02.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether The Learned Assessing Officer Is Justified In Passing The Assessment Order For The Year On The Basis Of Joint Development Agreement Without Verifying The Fact That Possession Of Plot Till Ashok Radhakishan Chechnai [A]

Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 54F

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

Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1304/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1304/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, 3 B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, S Ward-2(3), Pune. Krikee, Pune – 411003. Pan: Aaqpj2957F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C V Deshpande – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac]Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.08.2023 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Gravely Erred In Not Accepting Request Of The Appellant For Adjourning The Matter By Giving Some More Time To The Appellant & Passing The Exparty Order Within 5 Days Of Request By The Appellant Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

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 3 Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain [A] that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power ... 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

Incometax Officer, Ward-, Kottayam vs. Puthenkudy Paulose Babu, Kottayam

The appeal is allowed

ITA 775/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

what the Assessing Officer of to have done and also direct the latter to do what he has failed. However, as per section 251(1)(a) of the Act, in appeal against an order of assessment, the CIT(A) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but there ... thinks fit or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report to the Id. CIT(A). As per section 251(1)(a) of the Act, in appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but there is no such power

Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4420/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv.( Special Counsel for Revenue) & Sh. Karnav Mahrotra,

Section 234BSection 234CSection 251Section 32Section 43BSection 80

4420/Del/2018, the following concise grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the invocation of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and enhancement of Appellant’s income by the Hon’ble CIT(A) is invalid and contrary to the provisions of law. (G. No. 1

Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4419/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv.( Special Counsel for Revenue) & Sh. Karnav Mahrotra,

Section 234BSection 234CSection 251Section 32Section 43BSection 80

Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4418/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv.( Special Counsel for Revenue) & Sh. Karnav Mahrotra,

Section 234BSection 234CSection 251Section 32Section 43BSection 80

Ramkrishna Cine Exhibitors, Pune vs. Pne Circle 2 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 768/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.768/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramkrishna Cine Exhibitors, Vs. The Assessing Officer, C/O. Mangala Multiplex, Circle-2, Pune 101, Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aalfr4229F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mandar S. Khire and Shri S.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

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

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 399/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

Industries Ltd., (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.) 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and are of the view that before 01.06.2001, section 251(1)(a) provided that CIT(A) may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment