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

Shri Venkatesh Nisarg Sahakari Gruhrachna Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ACIT Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 2174/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2174/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Venkatesh Nisarg Sahakari V The Acit, Gruhrachna Sanstha Maryadit, S Ward-9(1), Pune. S.No.56/3/1, Vadagaon Bk, Near Hotel Ashirvad, Haveli, Pune – 411041. Pan: Aaras2349J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 30.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Bangaluru Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Society Thereby Confirming The Computation Of Total Income Made In The Intimation U/S. 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 12/07/2019 Issued By The Dcit, Cpc Bangaluru Assessing The Total Income In The Case Of The Appellant At Rs.10,04,160/- Ignoring & Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case Appellant Housing Society That The Appellant Is A Mutual Society Created By The Members & The Source Of Its Income Was From The Members Only & Therefore Its Income Was Qualified For Exemption Under The Act On Concept Of Mutuality As A Mutual Concern. The Appellate Order Passed By The Appellate Authority Be Quashed & The Assessing Officer Be Directed To Re-Compute The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. Nil Treating The Appellant As A Mutual Society.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Society for Community Intervention & Research, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2087/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2087/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Society For Community Intervention & Research…....Appellant 2/2, Tiljala Road, Near No.2 Rail Gate, Park Circus Station, Kol-700046. [Pan: Aaatc4285B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Exemption, Kolkata…..…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar & Vidhi Ladia, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.08.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That An Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 27.03.2019 Was Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru Denying Exemption U/S 11 To The Assessee On The Ground Of Non-Filing Form 10B In Time Or Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)(b)Section 250