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

Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove

ITA 1051/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Parle Biscuits Pvt. Dy Commissioner Ltd. Income Tax, Central North Level Crossing, Vs. Circle 5(4) Vile Parle (East), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra – 400057 Complex Bandra East, Maharashtra- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp0458D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By Shri R. A. Dhyani – Cit Dr & Shri V. S. Mahajan – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Office Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. For A.Y. 2021–22, The Impugned Appellate Order Is Dated 07.11.2025, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By Cpc Under Section 154 Read With Section 143(1) Dated 18.10.2024. For A.Y. 2022–23, The Impugned Appellate Order Is Dated 07.11.2025, Arising Out Of The Intimation Issued By Cpc Under Section 143(1) Dated 29.07.2023. Since Common Issues Are Involved, Both The Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 14ASection 154Section 154(3)Section 250

Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove

ITA 1050/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Parle Biscuits Pvt. Dy Commissioner Ltd. Income Tax, Central North Level Crossing, Vs. Circle 5(4) Vile Parle (East), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra – 400057 Complex Bandra East, Maharashtra- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp0458D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By Shri R. A. Dhyani – Cit Dr & Shri V. S. Mahajan – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Office Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. For A.Y. 2021–22, The Impugned Appellate Order Is Dated 07.11.2025, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By Cpc Under Section 154 Read With Section 143(1) Dated 18.10.2024. For A.Y. 2022–23, The Impugned Appellate Order Is Dated 07.11.2025, Arising Out Of The Intimation Issued By Cpc Under Section 143(1) Dated 29.07.2023. Since Common Issues Are Involved, Both The Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 14ASection 154Section 154(3)Section 250

M/S. M. S Luvish Infotech Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle -2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8993/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. M.S. Acit, Circle – 2(2)1, Luvishinfotech Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai, Cts 102/2, Sai Armaa, Maharashtra- 400020 Raut Lane, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aadcm4966H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Mansvi Singh Revenue By Shri Annavaramkosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 02.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] Dated 14.10.2025 For 2 Luvish Infotech Projects Pvt Ltd. Assessment Year 2019–20 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Act Dated 11.03.2025. Facts Of The Case 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Leasing Commercial Property. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessment Was Reopened Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing That Certain Parties Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Invoices Without Actual Supply Of Goods Or Services. On The Basis Of Such Information, Proceedings Under Section 148A Were Initiated & Thereafter Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued On 12.04.2023. During The Reassessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Purchases Aggregating To Rs. 54,04,045/- From Two Parties, Namely:  M/S Ketan Suresh Bhawar – Rs. 24,91,000/-  M/S Manoj Kumar Varada Ram – Rs. 29,13,045/- These Parties Were Allegedly Identified As Non-Genuine Entities Issuing Accommodation Bills.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C