Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.360

Section 251(2) 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(2) is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), cited in 659 of the 577 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
659
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
181
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

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

Ajji Basha v. CIT
111 Taxmann.com 348 · 2019 · High Court
55
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) must pass a speaking order on merits, considering the grounds raised in the assessee's appeal. They cannot dispose of an appeal by simply stating the Assessing Officer's order is self-speaking and requires no interference.

Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT
132 ITR 559 · 1981 · Supreme Court
39
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
35
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
22
citing judgments

Activities are not considered to be for profit if their dominant purpose is the promotion, protection, and development of trade, commerce, and industry, even if they involve income-generating activities like conducting trade fairs or collecting fees.

Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT
302 ITR 126 · 2008 · High Court
22
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot enhance income beyond what was originally assessed when giving effect to a set-aside order, unless specifically directed by the appellate authority. The powers of an appellate authority are confined to the subject matter of the appeal.

DIT v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission
262 CTR 558 · 2013 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on capital assets for charitable trusts even if expenditure was allowed as deduction, as long as it doesn't amount to double deduction. The principles of commercial accountancy apply when computing business income.

CIT v. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala
200 CTR 426 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A liability for interest, even if accrued during the year, is not deductible unless it is certain and the amount is ascertainable in that assessment year.

Judgments on Section 251(2)

Fl Smidth Minerals Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1283/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1283/Mds/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Vs The Dcit, M/S. Fl Smidth Minerals Private Limited Company Circle – Ii(1), (Now Merged With Flsmidth Private Chennai. Limited), “Flsmidth House”, No.34, Egattoor, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Kelambakkam, Chennai – 603 103. Pan: Aaacf1122D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri Girish Dave & Shri S.P. अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By Chidambaram, Advocates : Smt. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : 25.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Chennai Dated 16.01.2014 In Ita Nos.480/2013-14 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 143(3) & 271Aa Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds In Its Appeal, However The Crux Of The Issue Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Levy Of Penalty Amounting To Rs.95,77,305/-

For Respondent: 25.09.2017
Section 10B(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92F