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

Inglorious Films LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6624/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 Inglorious Films Llp, Income Tax Officer, Unit No.301, 3Rd Floor, Crescent Wrqh C23, Maharshi Karve Royale, Veera Desai Road, Off Rd., New Marine Lines, Vs. New Link Road, Oshiwara, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri – West, Mumbai – Churchgate, Mumbai – 400053. 400020. Pan –Aaffi0742Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Mr. Aamod Prabhudesai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Challenged The Rectification Order Dated 07.03.2023 Under Section 154 Of The Act By Filing First Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner Claiming Deduction On Donation Of Rs.5,00,000/- Under Section 80(G) Of The Act. The Ld. Commissioner Dismissed The Said Appeal By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances, Specific To The Effect That The Assessee 2 Inglorious Films Llp Cannot Claim Any Deduction (Herein Deduction Under Section 80(G) Of The Act) At The Appellate Stage, When The Same Has Not Been Claimed In The Original Return Of Income, Without Revising Itr Within Stipulated Time & Therefore, He Is Constrained Not To Allow This Claim Of Deduction At This Stage.

For Appellant: Mr. Aamod Prabhudesai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 154Section 250Section 80

Publicis Communication Private Limited As Successor to Capital Advertising Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2482/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2011-12 Publicis Communications The Deputy Private Limited, [As A Commissioner Of Income Successor To Erstwhile Tax, Circle-3(1), Capital Advertising Private [Now The Deputy Limited], Commissioner Of 15Th Floor, Urmi Estate, Tower Vs. Income-Tax, Circle A, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, 8(2)(1), Mumbai Lower Parel (West), On Account Of Merger], Mumbai – 400013. Room No. 479, 4Th Floor, Pan-Aabca5234G Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2015, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Has Made The Additions Of Rs.18,00,000/- & 2 Publicis Communications Private Limited, [As A Successor To Erstwhile Capital Advertising Private Limited] Rs.5,00,000/- On Account Of Disallowance Qua Payment Made To M/S. Publicis Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Pcpl) & M/S. Korn/Ferry International Pvt. Ltd. For The Prior Period Expense Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 250