Section 250 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.359

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 359 (Procedure in appeal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 359 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 250 is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 26,976 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 250

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI
73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court
1,778
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Judgments on Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati vs. M/S. Shiv Steel Industries, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 176/GTY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 176/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S. Shiv Steel Industries Circle-4 Vs Block Dhanuka Complex S.J. Road Athgaon, Kamrup Guwahati - 781001 [Pan : Abefs6132J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Acit, Sr. D/R & Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Guwahati -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 28/02/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Manufacturing Of Tmt Bars. Income Of Rs.20,58,660/- Declared In The E-Return Filed On 29/09/2013. Case Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Validly Serving Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. While Computing The Total Income, The Assessee Claimed Deduction U/S 80Ie Of The Act In Respect Of Vat Remission At Rs. 1,99,13,704/-. The Assessee Filed Form 10Ccb Eligibility Certificate, Registration Certificate From Inspector Of Factories, Assam & Other Details.

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, ACIT, Sr. D/R & Shri Arun
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 28Section 80I

Equiniti India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Crop .Circle 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 501/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.501/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Equiniti India Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dlf It Park, Block 10, 8Th Floor, Income Tax, 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Manapakkam, Corporate Circle 2(1), Mount Poonamallee Road, Chennai. Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. [Pan:Aabci 3514M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: Grounds Of Appeal 1. General Equiniti India Private Limited ('Equiniti India' Or 'The Appellant') Submits That The Order Dated 21 February 2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals (Cit(A)'), National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

Equiniti India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Crop .Circle 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 500/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.500/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Equiniti India Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dlf It Park, Block 10, 8Th Floor, Income Tax, 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Manapakkam, Corporate Circle 2(1), Mount Poonamallee Road, Chennai. Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. [Pan:Aabci 3514M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: Grounds Of Appeal 1. General Equiniti India Private Limited ('Equiniti India' Or 'The Appellant') Submits That The Order Dated 21 February 2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals (Cit(A)'), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

Basanti Automobiles, Januganj Golai vs. ITO Ward-2, Balasore

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

ITA 226/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Basanti Basanti Automobiles, Automobiles, 1, 1, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Januganj Januganj Golai, Golai, Po/Ps: Po/Ps: Balasore Januganj, Dist: Balasore Januganj, Dist: Balasore Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaifb 8729 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Delhi, Dated 25.5.2023 25.5.2023 In In Appeal Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023 /Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053160486(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 250

Shri Amrit Raj Gupta, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amrit Raj Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer Ward No.25 Ward-1(1) Hatri Chowk Bilaspur Juna, Bilaspur Chattisgarh- 495 001 Pan No. Apmpg 1659Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arose From The Order U/S 144/147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Framed By The Assessing Officer, Ito, Ward- 1(1), Bilashpur Dated 19.11.2018. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cita) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.58,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Undisclosed Income Being Capital Gain. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave, To Add Urge, Alter, Modify Or Withdraw Any Ground/S Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal & Smt. LaxmiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250