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

Aristo Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 6789/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Sh.Jogindersingh & Rajendra4आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6789/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. Addl.Cit-Range 2(1) Mercantile Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan,Mumbai-20 12 J N Heredia Marg,Bellard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaaca4495N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ( !यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Sh.Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By:Sh.Ajit Kumar Rastogi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.04.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 23/08/2012,Of The Cit (A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products Is,Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/10/2005, Declaring Income Of Rs. 81. 16 Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment, U/S. 143 (3) Of The Act,On 29/ 12/ 2007,Determining Its Income At Rs. 84.50 Crores.

For Appellant: Sh.Ajit kumar RastogiFor Respondent: Sh.Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244Section 244(1)(a)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 3

Mr Debayan Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata

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

ITA 32/KOL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Mr. Debayan Bhattacharya Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Db-29/B-4, Sector-1, Manicktalla Civic Centre, Salt Late City, Uttarapan Complex,Ds-Ii Kolkata-700064 Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpb 2128 D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.226/Xxxii/10-11/Cir-50/Kol, Dated 04.10.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 31.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 10.10.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,46,879/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T.Act. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected Under Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making Addition @ 1.25% Of Rs.193,279,555 Which 2 Mr. Debayan Bhattacharya

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145