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

BharatTax indexes 577 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 659 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) — 659 citing judgments; Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99) — 181 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

The Farrukhabad District Cooperative Bank, Farrukhabad vs. Addl. C.I.T., Range-2, Farrukhabad

In the result, ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is

ITA 138/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250

Sunil Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 390/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250Section 251(2)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Centre Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

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

Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Village Mansoorwal, Tehsil Zira Head Office, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 48/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Tehsil Zira, Faridkot -151203, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 463/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Quila Chowk

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 193/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

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

Sanjay Narendra Bansal, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7123/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

Sangeeta Motilal Shahani, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3)(1), Vashi Navi Mumbai

ITA 7078/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asnkit Tiwari, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Sharda Devi Singh, Raipur vs. ITO, Mahasamund

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 632/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 632/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sharda Devi Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, W/O Shri Shailendra Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, K-8, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, Mahasamund- 493445, Raipur-492001, C.G. C.G. Pan: Clzps1287D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

M/S Kubera Dal & Besan Millsz, Pune vs. CIT Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1966/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1966/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Kubera Dal & Besan V Dy.Cit, Millsz, S Circle-5, Pune. 21 To 24, Marketyard, Gultekadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aakfk3139J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Advocate Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake – (On Rotation Duty) Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 24.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

Madan Namdev Kamthe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2410/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Madan Namdev Kamthe, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.43, S.No.22, Kojagiri S Ward-5(2), Pune. Sahakari Gruhrachana Society, Balajinagar, Dhankawadi, Pune – 411043. Pan: Asvpk9249G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 04.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 251Section 251(2)Section 271D

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Anantnag vs. ITO, Anantnag

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

ITA 274/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251(2)

Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Anantnag vs. ITO, Anantnag

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

ITA 273/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251(2)

The Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. ( in Liquidation), Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward- -1, Dhule

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

ITA 1927/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 21(2)Section 250Section 80P

Gurpreet Singh Pannu, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/ASR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. AFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6591/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Income Tax Officer, B-502, Yash Paradise, Sector 8, Vs. Ward 42 (3)(1), Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing A Duly Sworn Affidavit Dated 13-09-2025 Has Claimed That The Assessee Has Shifted To Dubai & Thus For The Last Many Years Is Not Residing In India. However, During The Recent Trip In India, The Assessee Became Aware About The Ongoing Appeal Proceedings & Passing Of The Impugned Order & Therefore, The Delay Of 168 Days Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Mala-Fide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reasons.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 14Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5987/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnational Institute Of Construction Management & Research, Walchand Centre, Walchand Terraces, Tardeo Road, Ac Market ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400034 Pan : Aaatn1348J V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 2, ……………… Respondent Cumbala Hill, Telephone Exchange, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xii)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)