“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)

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Soltions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 2403/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri SC Tiwari/For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM The

Think and Learn Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Think & Learn Private Limited, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, 4/1, 6Th Floor, Tower D, Ibc Bengaluru. Knowledge Park, Bannerghatta Main Road, Opposite Fire Station, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan : Aaect 0931 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2022 Of The Principal Cit – 3 (Pcit), Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Online Learning Platform In The Name Of “Byju” For Kindergarten To 12Th Standard Students & Other Related Services. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Page 2 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 245RSection 245R(2)(i)Section 263Section 40Section 56(2)(vii)

rejoinder, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) in an appeal against the Order of Assessment under section 251(1)(a) of the Act can confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Under section 263(1)(i) of the Act, the CIT(A) has power of cancelling

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 46ASection 68

contended that since this issue was not examined by the AO, the CIT(A) could not exercise his powers of enhancement under section 251(1)(a) of the Act, in view of the embargo laid down in Explanation to 251 of the Act. The relevant statutory provisions are as follows ... from various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, Union Tyres observes, is that the first appellate authority is invested with very wide powers under section 251(1)(a) of the Act and once an assessment order is brought before the authority, his competence is not restricted to examining only those aspects

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in de facto setting aside the issue to the AO in contravention of section 251(1) (a) of the Act by directing the AO to refer the matter for valuation u/s 55A of the Act without categorically deciding the correctness ... Revenue is upheld as Ld. CIT (A) is not empowered in setting-aside the issue to the file of AO in contravention of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Duty assigned to the Ld. CIT (A) is to either accept the correctness of either assessee’s valuation or valuation

DCIT, Cir - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Ohm Stock Broker P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1445/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 4(2)(1) V. M/S. Ohm Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 642, 6Th Floor 301-A, Poonam Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road B-Wing, Dr. A.B. Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai -400018 Pan: Aaaco3526E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri M.P. Ahuja

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Ahuja

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 73

issue whether Ld.CIT(A) can issue direction to the Assessing Officer to verify certain transactions in view of the amended provisions of section 251(1)(a) to set aside the assessment. Further, in Ground No. 2 whether Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness ... Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by him and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of section 251(1)(1)(a) are properly adhered to. Even on merits after going through facts on record, we are 14 M/s. Ohm Stock Brokers

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmisson Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll .CIT - RG. 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. AR

Section 250

Assessing Officer for de novo verification of the details as directed to be filed by the assessee is contrary to the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. In view of the above, we direct the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate this issue de novo. The learned

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2782/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. AR

Section 250

DCIT - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Toto India Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 6226/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)

Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

Trader to see whether any adjustment is needed on the transactions of Purchase and Technical Administrative Fees despite the amendment to provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act w.e.f 01.06.2001 whereby power to set-aside the appealed issue has been withdrawn? 1.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances ... further submitted that the CIT(A) has no power to set aside the matter to the TPO / A.O. under the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 10. On the other hand, Shri. Dhanesh Bafna, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned A.R.”) appearing for the assessee submitted that

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

Asavri Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 40(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 400/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Ms. Asavri Singhal Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 27, Tarun Enclave, Ward 40(5), Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi-110034 Pan : Bqnps4338B

Section 148Section 150(1)Section 251(1)(a)

assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Because, the “CIT(A)” has exceeded his authority and jurisdiction as conferred upon him under section 251(1)(a) of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, as appearing at para

Ashutosh Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 40(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 399/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Ashutosh Singhal, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 27, Tarun Enclave, Ward 40(5), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 New Delhi Pan-Bqnps5849F

Section 148Section 150(1)Section 251(1)(a)

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 673/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

situations, an income which ought to have been taxed and remained untaxed, the Legislature has provided different remedial measures as are contained in sections 251(1)(a), 263, 154 and 147 of the Act. 21. In the category stated in (a), obviously if an income escapes an assessment, the provisions ... invoked, 13 subject to the condition stated in the proviso to the said section. In the category of cases falling in category (b), section 251(1)(a) provides the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could enhance such an assessment qua the under assessed sum, i.e., where the Assessing Officer