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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujrat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1654/Ahd/2024 & 1656/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17 Respectively Deputy Commissioner Of Gujrat State Electricity बनाम/ Income Tax Corporation Limited V/S. Circle-1(1)(1) Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vadodara 390 007 Race Course Circle Alkapuri, Baroda – 390 007 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals By The Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2016-17 Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Cit(A) Orders Arose From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, By The Deputy

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1654/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1654/Ahd/2024 & 1656/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17 Respectively Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1) Vadodara 390 007 बनाम / V/S. Gujrat State Electricity Corporation Limited Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Race Course Circle Alkapuri, Baroda – 390 007 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals By The Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2016-17 Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Cit(A) Orders Arose From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"], Dated 25.02.2015 (Ay 2012-13) & 28.12.2018 (Ay 2016-17). 2. The Primary Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Treatment Of Interest Income On Loans & Advances Provided To Employees, Amounting To Rs.4,56,05,000/- (Ay 2012-13) & Rs.8,00,35,000/- (Ay 2016-17). 2.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56

Subhash Chand, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] V.V. Transport, Vs Acit, 96-A, Sindhu Bhawan, Rohtak Subhash Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana-124001. Pan-Aadfv5250G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sakshi Pandey, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.20248 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Rohtak/10584/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Running Of Petrol Pump. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 28.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,29,25,730/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reasons Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 24.09.2018. After Considering The Submissions & The Books Of Accounts Submitted, The Ao Had Taken No Adverse Inference On The Issue Of Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period However, He Has Made Disallowance Of Inr 12,20,700/- By Holding That The Assessee Has Made Interest Free Advances To Staff & To One Of The Partners Whereas It Is Paying Interest On The Borrowings. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance Made Out Of The Interest Payments Towards The Staff Advances Given However, Confirmed The Disallowance On Account Of Advances Given To The Partner Of Inr 1 Crore.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36