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

Ghatkopar Sahajivan Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 825/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sghatkopar Sahajivan Nfac Co-Op.Housing Society Mumbai-400020. बनाम/ Ltd., Sulsa House Plot Vs. No.26, Nath Pai Nagar, Gahtkopar East, Mumbai-400077. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacag6938Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "Cpc/Acit 27(1), Mumbai Has Erred While Making Adhoc Disallowance Of Rs.470220/-In Intimation U/S.143(1) & Also In Rectification U/S.154. 2 Ghatkopar Sahajivan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Income Tax Office-20(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Crystal Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 823/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sito-20(1)(1), M/S. Crystal 110,1St Floor, Piramal Corporation, 4A/4B, बनाम/ Chamber, Ground Floor, Opp. Vs. Lalbaug,Parel, Annex Building, Old Mumbai-400012. Anjirwadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc7226Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri.Anil Gupta.Dr ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Restricting The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase To 6% Of Total Bogus Purchases Ignoring The Fact That The Sales

For Appellant: Shri.Anil Gupta.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

Naiyer Sultan, Kolkata vs. ADIT, Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 315/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-19 Naiyer Sultan Adit - Cpc, Bangalore, Karnataka C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Auups6171N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 16/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Issue Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Summary Adjustment Made By The Cpc While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Thereby Taking The Gross Receipts Of The Assessee From Job Work At Rs.17,01,701/- As Income Of The Assessee Instead Of Net Receipts Of Rs.1,32,144/- As Reflected In The Return Of Income. 2.1. Being Aggrieved By The Said Adjustment Made By The Cpc Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). However, Ld. Cit(A) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee Observing That The Assessee In The Return Of Income Did Not Claim The Expenses U/S 57 Of The Act. That The Assessee Straight Away Claimed The Net Amount In The Return Of Income Whereas The Assessee Was

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 57

Jayanti Roy, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 104/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.104/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayanti Roy..........……….…………………................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Adipr0466J] Vs. Ito, Ward-33(4), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 23, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Regarding The Cash Deposits During Demonetisation Period. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Brought To Our Attention To Page 6 Of The Paper-Book Which Is The Copy Of The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee Maintained With Allahabad Bank & Bank Of

Section 250

Bhagyashree Manohar Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward - 26(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 791/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sbhagyashree Manohar Ito, Ward-26(1)(2), Sawant, 702, 7Th Floor, Room.No.303, बनाम/ Ptabuddha Samata Co- Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Op Hsg. Society, Bkc, Bandra(E), Sant Rohidas Marg, Mumbai-400051. Sion, Mumbai-400022. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cohps2513D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Malav Sheth.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “Additions Of Rs.25,48,198/- Confirmed Without Giving Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Bad-In-Law & Must Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth.ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Robert Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 368/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.368/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Robert Holding Pvt. Ltd..................................................................……Appellant 121, Netaji Subhas Road, 4Th Floor, Room No.47, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabcr4839G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 22, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Addition Of Rs.13680000/- Constituting Share Capital Of Rs.2280000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.11400000/- Treating The Same As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 68 Of The Act. The Another Issue Raised By The Assessee Through Grounds Of Appeal Is That The Assessee Had Returned Income At A

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68