Section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.362

Section 253(3) falls under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 362 (Appeals to Appellate Tribunal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 362 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 253(3) is PCIT v. IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 186), cited in 255 of the 455 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 253(3)

PCIT v. IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd.
84 Taxmann.com 186 · 2017 · High Court
255
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not permissible where the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. A CBDT Circular cannot override the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D to mandate such a disallowance.

CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.
272 CTR 282 · 2014 · High Court
128
citing judgments

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee, and investments made for business purposes in subsidiaries do not warrant disallowance under Section 14A, even if no dividend income is earned.

CIT v. Sitex Industries Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 171 · 2017 · High Court
117
citing judgments

No disallowance for investments made out of surplus funds can be made if tax-free dividends are earned on such investments.

PCIT v. Sintex Industries Limited
93 Taxmann.com 24 · 2018 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

When an assessee has sufficient own or surplus non-interest-bearing funds to cover investments yielding exempt income, no disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A is warranted, and Rule 8D for estimating such expenditure does not apply.

Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
252 ITR 471 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

A penalty under sections like 271D or 271E is not automatically imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The interpretation of 'reasonable cause' is that which would prevent a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence from acting negligently or in bad faith.

CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd.
142 Taxmann.com 136 · 2022 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

When an assessee has mixed funds, investments yielding tax-free income are presumed to be made from interest-free funds, thereby preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Pr. CIT v. Avantha Realty Ltd.
164 Taxmann.com 376 · 2024 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Amendments made to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, inserting a non-obstante clause and an explanation, are prospective from April 1, 2022, and cannot be applied retrospectively. Further, where no exempt income is earned, Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be applied.

CIT v. Shivam Motors
272 CTR 277 · 2014 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year.

448 ITR 674 (Delhi and Pr.CIT v. Oil Industry Development Board
103 Taxmann.com 325 · 2019 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not permissible if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. This position is affirmed by the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court.

289 (Delhi), Williamson Financial Services Ltd. v. CIT
166 Taxmann.com 607 · 2024 · Reported
25
citing judgments

The explanation inserted to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective in nature and not retrospective.

Judgments on Section 253(3)

Narayan Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

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

ITA 524/CTK/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.524/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Narayan Mahapatra, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar B-7, Green Park, Jagamohan Nagar, Jagamara, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751030 Pan No. :Afgpm 9438 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satya Prakash Sahoo, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Hyderabad, Dated 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 121 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Occurred Due To Bona Fide Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. It Has Also Been Mentioned In The Affidavit That The Assessee Is Employed With An Mnc Company, Infosys Ltd., As A Senior Delivery Manager. His Nature Of Work Requires Frequent Travel & Deputation To Bengaluru & Overseas Locations As & When Demanded By The 2 Employer. Due To These Professional Exigencies, The Assessee Was Unable To Devote The Adequate Time To Prepare & File The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. The Contents Of The Affidavit Reads As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR