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

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata..……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………...………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S P Mukherjee Road, Kol-700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 27 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Ikab Securitites and Investment Now Known As Mk Ventures Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-4(1)(1), Mumabi

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

ITA 6483/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ikab Securities & Income Tax Officer Investment Now Known As 4(1)(2), Mk Ventures Capital Limited, 533, Aayakar Bhavan, Building No.05, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Raja Bahadur Compound, 43 Tamarind Lane, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaaci9007N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 O R D E R Per: Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (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. 2015-16. 2. Perusing The Impugned Order, It Clearly Appears That While Deciding The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dt. 28/03/2025 U/S 154 Of The Act By The Assessing Officer, The Ld. Commissioner Has Not Issued Any Notice But Somehow May Be Oversight Or Inadvertently Taken In The 2 M/S. Ikab Securities & Investment Now Known As Mk Ventures Capital Limited Consideration, The Application For Stay Of Demand Dt. 26/05/2025 & Accordingly Disposed Of The Appeal, Without Adjudicating The Appropriate Issues Involved In The 1St Appeal Filed/Pending Before Him. Therefore, This Court Is Inclined To Remand The Instant Case To The File Of The Ld. Commissioner, For Decision Afresh, Suffice To Say By Provided A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. 3. Thus, The Case Is Accordingly Remanded To The File Of Ld. Commissioner For Decision Afresh.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 250

Capco Finance & Investment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 6463/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Capco Finance & Income Tax Officer Investment Private Ltd. 15(1)(1), (Stuck Off), 103, Aayakar Bhavan, 103, Gateway Plaza, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan: Aabcc8254A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Manish Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.05.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (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. 2012-13. The Parties Have Submitted That The Assessment Order 2. Dt. 20/12/2019 U/S 143 (3) R.W.S.147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Which Penalty To The Tune Of Rs. 4,36,323/- Has Been Levied Vide Order Dt. 25.06.2021 U/S 271 (1)(C) Of The 2 M/S. Capco Finance & Investment Private Ltd. (Stuck Off) Act By The Ao, Has Already Been Quashed By The Hon’Ble Co- Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Vide Order Dt. 20/02/2025 Passed In Ita No. 44/M/2025. 3. As A Foundation Of The Penalty Levied, Has Already Been Collapsed & Thus The Penalty Levied, Will Also Face The Same Consequences, Thus, The Penalty Levied Is Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 250Section 271