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

East India Business Centre Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7, Kolkata

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

ITA 2058/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2058/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 East India Business Centre Private Limited.......................................Appellant 25A, Shakespeare Sarani, The Legacy, 1St Floor, Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabce7659R] D.C.I.T. Circle 7 Kolkata...................……………………………………Respondent 54, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata - 700017 Appearances By: Shri Subbiah Chidambaram, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit (Appeals) – 16, Kolkata Dated 04.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On The Following Grounds: 1. Order Bad In Law & On Facts 1.1 That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Under Section 250 Of The It Act Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 2. Disclosure Of Higher Income In Revised Return 2.1 That On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) That Disclosure Of Higher Income Of Rs. 37,65,827/- (Before Adjustment Of Brought Forward Losses) In The Revised Return Filed By The Company As Against The Original Return Resulted In Concealment Of Income. 2.2 That The Ld. Cit (A) Failed To Consider That The Total Income Disclosed In Both The Original & Revised Return Was Nil After Adjustment Of Brought Forward Losses. 3. Expenses Incurred Towards Property Service Charges

Section 250Section 40

DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Topnotch Chemicals P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12

ITA 6231/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6231/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Dcit 15(3)(1), Vs. M/S Topnotch Chemicals Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No. C-116, Maharshi Karve Road, Ttc Industrial Area, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Pawane Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact3865F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं./Co No. 155/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Topnotch Chemicals Private Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. 15(3)(1), Limited, Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-116, Aaykar Bhavan, Ttc Industrial Area, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Pawane Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3865F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm The Present Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively Against Order Dated 18/08/2016 Passed By The 2 Ita No. 6231/Mum/2016 & Co No. 155/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148