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)

Mr Debayan Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata

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

ITA 32/KOL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Mr. Debayan Bhattacharya Vs. Acit, Circle-50, Db-29/B-4, Sector-1, Manicktalla Civic Centre, Salt Late City, Uttarapan Complex,Ds-Ii Kolkata-700064 Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpb 2128 D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.226/Xxxii/10-11/Cir-50/Kol, Dated 04.10.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 31.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 10.10.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,46,879/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T.Act. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected Under Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making Addition @ 1.25% Of Rs.193,279,555 Which 2 Mr. Debayan Bhattacharya

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145

Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

ITA 3610/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/ 3610 & 3611/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2000-01 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Citicorp Finance (I) Limited The Addl. Cit, Range-10(1) 5Th Floor, Plot C-61,Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Vs. G-Block,Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan:Aabcc 4881 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/ 3162/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2000-01 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" The Addl. Cit, Range-10(1) Citicorp Finance (I) Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Mumbai-400 051. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप ""या"ेप/C.O/.No. 148 /Mum/2011,Arising Out Of Ita/3162/Mum/2011 Ay.2000-01 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप Citicorp Finance (I) Limited The Addl. Cit, Range-10(1) Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Aayakar Bhavan,Mumbai. (Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: S/Shri M. Dayasagar, Ganesh Bare-Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Sonde-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 26.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sonde-ARFor Respondent: S/Shri M. Dayasagar, Ganesh Bare-CIT(DR)
Section 10(33)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 254Section 254(1)Section 254(2)