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

M/S. Amritlaxmi Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 745/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 745/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Amritlaxmi Trexim Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), 14C, M.D. Road Vs Kolkata 4Th Floor Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aakca4129P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 24/01/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Had Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically Declaring Total Income At Rs.390/-. The Company Had Issued Shares At A Premium During The Year. The Assessing Officer Selected The Case For Scrutiny & Issued Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Which Remained Unserved. Summons U/S 131 Of The Act Were Issued To The Director Of The Share Subscriber Companies For Personal Attendance. None Appeared. The Assessing Officer Drew Adverse Inference & Made An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Of The Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 250Section 68

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

ITA 235/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.235/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4(1), Raipur (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Nand Kishore Agrawal, Moti Nagar, Shiv Steel, Boria Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Ajdpa4766H . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 29/02/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Deleting The Addition Carried Out By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur [For Short “Ao”] Vide Assessment Order Dt. 27/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) By For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

A.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Descon Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1648/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1648/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Descon Ltd. Tax – Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs Plot No. X -1,2,3, Block-Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacd9410G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 16, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.56,07,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent & Connectivity Charges As Because The Assessee Follows The Mercantile Basis Of Accounting System & The Expenses Should Be Recorded As & When It Arises. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.33,82,434/- Made By The Ao On Account Of The Employees Contribution To Pf/Esi As Because It Violates The Provision Of Sec.36(1)(Va) Read With Sec 2(24)(X) Of The It Act & It Contradicts The Board'S Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015, Para No. 5 Where It Is Clarified That "This Circular Does Not Apply To Claim Of Deduction Relating To Employee'S Contribution To Welfare Fund Which Are Governed By Sec.36(1)(Va) Of The Act".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 68

Shri. Kishore Kandikere, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-International Taxation 1(2), Bangalore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 99/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A No. 99/Bang/2023 & Sp No. 09/Bang/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Kishore Kandikere Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 1(2) 6Th Floor, Divyasree Chambers (International Taxation) Off Langford Road, Shantinagar Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road Bengaluru 560025 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Alqpk6495G Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) It(It)A No. 100/Bang/2023 & Sp No. 10/Bang/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rekha Channabasappa Kandikere Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 1(2) 6Th Floor, Divyasree Chambers (International Taxation) Off Langford Road, Shantinagar Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road Bengaluru 560025 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Alqpk6495G Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. These Appeals Have Been Filed By Two Different Assessee’S Against Separate Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-12, Bengaluru Vide Din No. Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1043375089(1) & Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1043374813(1)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 69

M/S. Varthur Foundation Trust, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 50/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S Varthur Foundation Trust Vs. The Income Tax Officer No. 3 & 4, Giddens Layout (Exemptions), Ward 2 Whitefield Road, Whitefield Unity Buildings, Mission Road Bengaluru 560066 Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabtv4472G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shir B.R. Sudhendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Cit(A)’S Order Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1057949859(1) Dated 12.12.2022 For Ay 2016-7 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru ['Dcit(Cpc)' For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Passing The Order Of Rectification Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') & The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ["Cit(A) For Short Here In After"] Has Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 250 Of The Act, In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders So Passed Are Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shir B.R. Sudhendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

Smt. Rekha Channabasappa Kandikere, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-International Taxation 1(2), Bangalore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 100/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A No. 99/Bang/2023 & Sp No. 09/Bang/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Kishore Kandikere Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 1(2) 6Th Floor, Divyasree Chambers (International Taxation) Off Langford Road, Shantinagar Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road Bengaluru 560025 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Alqpk6495G Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) It(It)A No. 100/Bang/2023 & Sp No. 10/Bang/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rekha Channabasappa Kandikere Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 1(2) 6Th Floor, Divyasree Chambers (International Taxation) Off Langford Road, Shantinagar Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road Bengaluru 560025 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Alqpk6495G Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. These Appeals Have Been Filed By Two Different Assessee’S Against Separate Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-12, Bengaluru Vide Din No. Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1043375089(1) & Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1043374813(1)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 69