How many judgments are there on Section 251(2)?

BharatTax indexes 295 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614) is the decision most relied on for Section 251(2), cited in 654 judgments. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 251(2)?

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614) — 654 citing judgments; Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99) — 175 citing judgments; Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (89 Taxmann.com 127) — 130 citing judgments; Ajji Basha v. CIT (111 Taxmann.com 348) — 55 citing judgments; Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT (132 ITR 559) — 39 citing judgments.

The decision most relied on for Section 251(2) is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), cited in 654 of the 295 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 251(2)

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

654

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT

266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court

175

citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona

89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court

130

citing judgments

Depreciation under Section 32 is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts computing income under Section 11. The amendment to Section 11(6) by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, is prospective, applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16.

Ajji Basha v. CIT

111 Taxmann.com 348 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT

132 ITR 559 · 1981 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A reserve set apart to meet a known liability is not a reserve for the purposes of accounting, but rather a provision for a liability. This means it cannot be considered a reserve for tax purposes.

CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram

91 Taxmann 181 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can make enhancements to an assessment during appellate proceedings, provided such enhancements do not amount to introducing an entirely new head of income.

Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi

130 ITR 186 · 1981 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT

302 ITR 126 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

DIT v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

262 CTR 558 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala

200 CTR 426 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 251(2)

SHRI GANESH RAMCHANDRA MORE,PANVEL vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2747/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. C. Malakar &

Section 269Section 269SSection 275(1)(c)Section 45

TELEPLEX CONSTRUCTION CO.,DELHI vs. DCIT CIR 58.1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5478/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarteleplex Construction Co., Dcit, B-842, Mig Flats, East Of Loni Cir 58.1, Road, Delhi-110093. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Aaaft5223G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri V. K. Sabharwal, Adv. Shri Rajiv Kumar, Adv. Shri Sanjeev Saxena, Ca Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 08.07.2024 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of Ld. Assessing Officer/ Assessment Unit [Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ao’] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assesse Filed Return Of Income On 02.10.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.74,23,580/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected Through Cass. The Assessee Had Shown High Liabilities As Compare To Low Income/Receipts Teleplex Construction Co. Vs. Dcit

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 68Section 69C

UMESH KUMAR PANDEY, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Raipur02 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 42/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Darshana Bhaiya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

PIYUSH VINOD SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD-42(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5470/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishpiyush Vinod Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, C 304, Agrawal Residency, Ward 42(1)(4) Shankar Lane, Kandivali Room No. 733, Kautilya West Mumbai - 400067 Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (East) Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Akjps6868F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tanzil Padvekar, Adv Revenue By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 07.05.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant For Non-Prosecution, Without

Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 50C

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S FORTUNE METALS LTD., LUDHIANA

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 961/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.961/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit (Central Cricle -1) M/S Fortune Metals Ltd. बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Circuit House, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana Vs. (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-8508-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.36/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.961/Chandi/2025] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Fortune Metals Ltd. Dcit (Central Cricle -1) बनाम/ Opp. Circuit House, Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Vs. (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-8508-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(3)Section 250

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. ITO, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

PAWAN KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI vs. ITO,WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3233/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 69A

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 69A

M/S VIVEK CONSTRUCITON,BALCO NAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 67/RPR/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

VIVEK CONSTRUCTION,BALCO KORBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 66/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

V Y INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

MRIGESH GAURAV,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 42(2)(4),, MUMBAI

ITA 7988/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

Showing 1–20 of 295 · Page 1 of 15

...