Section 249 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 249 is 11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (242 ITR 381), cited in 32 of the 146 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 249

11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT
242 ITR 381 · 2000 · Supreme Court
32
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated so long as the original assessment proceedings, based on a return already filed, are pending and have not been disposed of or terminated.

Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT
63 ITR 651 · 1967 · Supreme Court
27
citing judgments

The date of acquisition of shares, particularly in the context of rights issues, is the date the company's offer to subscribe to shares is made, not the date of allotment, physical issuance, or payment.

Jayvant Singh Vaghela v. ITO
40 Taxmann.com 491 · 2013 · High Court
26
citing judgments

The Gujarat High Court in Jayvant Singh Vaghela v. ITO (2013) establishes that a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal is necessary for condonation. The court relies on principles laid down in landmark Supreme Court decisions to assess whether the grounds presented by the assessee constitute a sufficient 'reasonable cause' for the delay.

Agarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
14 SCC 578 · 2011 · Reported
18
citing judgments
DERC. 22. In Puna Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT
56 ITR 521 · 1965 · Supreme Court
17
citing judgments
Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai
153 Taxmann.com 354 · 2023 · High Court
13
citing judgments
T Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT
39 ITR 8 · 1960 · Supreme Court
12
citing judgments
Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil
125 STC 375 · Supreme Court
11
citing judgments
247 (Delhi). (ix) Ravindra Kr. Verma v. CIT
73 Taxmann.com 117 · 2016 · High Court
10
citing judgments
Sitaram Ramcharan v. Nagarshana
1 SCR 875 · 1960 · Reported
9
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 249

SRI GURU SINGH SABHA,KALYAN vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1271/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Bhavya Sundesha a/w Ms. Sonakshi JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr.DR)
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 249Section 250

RAGHAV RAI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 51/DDN/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 48

VARSHA DILIP DHRUV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 6835/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 249Section 250

VARSHA DILIP DHRUV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 6834/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 249Section 250

VARSHA DILIP DHRUV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 6833/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 249Section 250

VARSHA DILIP DHRUV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 6832/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 249Section 250

VARSHA DILIP DHRUV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 6831/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 249Section 250

FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING & RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8082/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Simran DhawanFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 249Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING AND RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8081/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Simran DhawanFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 249Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING AND RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO P LIMITED,THANE vs. WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8080/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Simran DhawanFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, SR. DR
Section 249Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI , BELAGAVI vs. SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 149/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi, . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Idrees Mohammed Shop No. 4Cc, New Vegetable Market, Main Road, Kalaburagi, Karnataka-585101. Pan: Aajpi7572E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

ANSARI PAKKIDAKALA ,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

ITA 146/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 264Section 44ASection 69A

RAMESH LALAWAT,VASHI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 8838/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

SHRI DURDUNDESHWAR URBAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NYT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita No. 306 To 307 & 311/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamita Subhash Road, Sankeshwar Belagavi-591313 Pan:Aaaas5612D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

SHRI DURDUNDESHWAR URBAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NYT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita No. 306 To 307 & 311/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamita Subhash Road, Sankeshwar Belagavi-591313 Pan:Aaaas5612D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

SHRI DURDUNDESHWAR URBAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NYT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, GOKAK

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita No. 306 To 307 & 311/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamita Subhash Road, Sankeshwar Belagavi-591313 Pan:Aaaas5612D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 148/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: None for theFor Respondent: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(2)Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(2)

SHRI MANOJ ANAND,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

ITA 9/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Shrinivas Nayak & Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR ANAND,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

ITA 8/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Shrinivas Nayak & Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S MOHIT ISPAT LTD., KUNDAIM

Appeal of the Revenue is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 9/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Mohit Ispat Limited 339/340, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Goa-403115 Pan: Aaccm8154E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Of The Revenue Instituted U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Order Dt. 04/10/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Sprung From Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(2)

Showing 1–20 of 146 · Page 1 of 8

...