Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 250(4) is Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar (1 SCC 591), cited in 225 of the 443 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 250(4)
The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.
The transformation of bulk powder into regulated, consumable capsules constitutes manufacturing under the definition provided in various statutes, qualifying for associated tax benefits and deductions.
Appellate courts, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, admit additional evidence only under exceptional circumstances as specified in procedural rules, not as a matter of right. Concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities are generally upheld unless demonstrated to be perverse.
A provision for gratuity made on an actuarial basis is a revenue expenditure and not an unascertained liability, therefore, it cannot be added back to book profits under Section 115JB.
Judgments on Section 250(4)
Showing 1–20 of 443 · Page 1 of 23