Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.360

Section 251(1) falls under section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 360 (Powers of Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals)) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 360 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 251(1) is PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd. (98 Taxmann.com 47), cited in 104 of the 160 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 251(1)

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.
98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court
104
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

CIT v. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd.
319 ITR 5 · 2009 · Supreme Court
74
citing judgments

When an assessee company receives share application money or unsecured loans and provides the identity of the shareholders or creditors to the Assessing Officer, the amount cannot be treated as the assessee's undisclosed income under Section 68. The Income Tax Department must instead proceed against the alleged bogus shareholders or creditors individually.

PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd.
433 ITR 82 · 2021 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot reject the share valuation method adopted by an assessee under Section 56(2)(viib) if it adheres to prescribed methodologies and commercial prudence. The valuation cannot be challenged based on future performance or by substituting another method.

M/s Puri Construction Private Limited v. Addl. CIT & Ors.
159 Taxmann.com 444 · 2024 · High Court
42
citing judgments

External Development Charges (EDC) paid by a developer to a government body like Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) for a development project are contractual payments, making them liable for tax deduction at source under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rohtak Chain Co. Pvt. Ltd.
110 Taxmann.com 59 · 2019 · Supreme Court
31
citing judgments

The case is cited for the proposition that assessees must produce requisite documents, including confirmation of ITR, balance sheets, and bank accounts, to satisfy the ingredients of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Failure to do so can lead to adverse inferences.

Vodafone M Star Ltd. v. DCIT
114 Taxmann.com 323 · 2020 · ITAT
23
citing judgments
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
148 Taxmann.com 26 · 2023 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court confirms that when shares are issued at a premium to investors, the valuation of such shares must be assessed based on established methods like the NAV or DCF method, and the revenue cannot arbitrarily determine the fair market value.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. BharatSecurities
113 Taxmann.com 32 · 2020 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

An assessee must produce requisite original documents, including confirmation of ITR, balance sheet, and bank accounts, to satisfy the ingredients of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and discharge their burden.

DCIT v. Charipall
177 Taxmann.com 69 · Reported
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 251(1)

Paresh Nath Singha, Nadia vs. D.C.I.T Cir - Nadia, Nadia

In the result the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 2045/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2045/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Paresh Nath Singha -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle Nadia Nadia [Pan : Akkps 3298 L) (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Das, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kr.Kureel, Jcit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 06 .01.2017. Order Per Aby T.Varkey, Jm This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxxvi, Kolkata Dated 06.12.2012 For A.Y 2009-10. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 122 Days Which The Ld. Ar Explained That During The Assessment Proceeding Shri S.K.Modak, Advocate Represented The Assessee Before The Ao. Thereafter Before The Ld. Cit(A), Shri U.Gupta, Ca Was Representing The Matter. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 06.12.2012 Was Received By The Assessee On 31.12.2012. The Ld. Ar Took Our Attention To Para No.2 Of The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Wherein It Has Been Stated That The Assessee Requested Shri S.K.Modak, Advocate To Consult Some Tax Consultant In Respect To Preferring An Appeal Before The Tribunal. Later On The Assessee Came To Know That Shri Modak’S Father Was Terminally Ill Because Of Cancer & That He Passed Away On 2Nd June, 2013. So Shri S.K.Modak Could Not Consult The Tax Consultant & Prepare The Appeal For Filing Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Ar Pleaded That Because Of This Unfortunate Incident Happening, Shri S.K.Modak Was Not In A Position To File The Appeal In Time For Which The Assessee Should Not Be Penalized. We Take Note That From A Perusal Of The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kr.Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 251(1)

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S. M.D. Overseas Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2337/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Central Circle, Noida Vs. M/S. M.D. Overseas Ltd., 43, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi Pan : Aaccm9507F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Deepika Mittal, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh Nikunj Khanna, Ca Date Of Hearing 20.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17/01/2014 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals) , Noida For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: I. That The Ld. C1T(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Cwc-Nsez Expenses Amounting To Rs. 18,26,474/- Ignoring The Facts Of The Case As Well As Detailed Discussion Made In The Assessment Order & Materials Brought On Record By The A.O. Ii. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Freight & Forwarding Expenses Amounting To Rs.18,25,262/- Ignoring The Facts Of The Case As Well As 2 Ay: 2009-10 Detailed Discussion Made In The Assessment Order & Materials Brought On Record By The A.O. Iii. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Without Giving A Finding That These Expenses Were Incurred Wholly & Exclusively For Business So As To Be A Allowable Deduction U/S 37 Of The I.T. Act. Iv. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Giving Any Finding Despite The Fact That He Was Exercising Co-Terminus Jurisdiction With A.O. In Term Of Explanation Of Section 251(1) Of The I.T. Act. V. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Being Erroneous In Law & On Facts Which Needs To Be Vacated & The Order Of The A.O. Be Restored. Vi. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Ground Of The Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise.

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 251(1)Section 37