Section 253 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.362

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT (317 ITR 433), cited in 202 of the 1,318 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 253

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.
318 ITR 116 · 2009 · High Court
64
citing judgments

When the valuation of closing stock is adjusted to include CENVAT or Modvat credit under Section 145A, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock.

CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Rs. 73.5
63 ITR 609 · 1967 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to enhance an assessment under section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Mcorp Global P. Ltd. v. CIT
309 ITR 434 · 2009 · Supreme Court
56
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot enhance an assessment or take back a benefit granted to an assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's power under section 254(1) is not to enhance the assessment.

Somasundaram and Bros. v. CIT
238 ITR 939 · 1999 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act to the extent such funds are diverted to provide interest-free advances for non-business purposes, such as to sister concerns or promoter companies.

CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd.
74 ITR 723 · 1969 · High Court
51
citing judgments

When an assessee has mixed funds from both own sources and borrowings in a cash credit account, the debit balance is presumed to have been met from the company's own funds. This principle is applied to assess the allowability of interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) for capital borrowed for business purposes.

State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra
2 SCR 154 · 1968 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

A judicial decision is authority only for what it actually decides, which is its ratio decidendi, and not for every observation or what logically follows from general expressions. A decision must be read as applicable to the facts proved, with general expressions qualified by the specific context in which they are found.

Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA v. Department of Revenue
354 ITR 316 · 2013 · High Court
42
citing judgments

Gains from the indirect transfer of shares in a foreign company holding Indian shares are not taxable in India under the relevant tax treaty, which is considered a self-contained code to be interpreted plainly. Creating corporate structures or special purpose vehicles for investment to secure tax benefits is a legitimate business activity.

CIT v. Rampur Engg
309 ITR 143 · 2009 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Income-tax Act depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, which must be recorded during the proceedings. If the officer is not satisfied and has not recorded this satisfaction, the penalty cannot be exercised.

M/s Liberty India Vs. CIT 225 CTR 233(SC), CIT v. Sterling Foods
227 ITR 557 · 1997 · Supreme Court
32
citing judgments

Income from a deferred VAT rebate granted by a state government for sales tax incentives is not considered income derived from an industrial undertaking and is therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

Judgments on Section 253

Shri Shri Khushiram Kundnani, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 278/BIL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 278 To 284/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2006-2007 To 2012-2013 Khushiram Kundnani, E-2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aevpk 3467 J .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G) ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax–Appeals(33), Delhi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt 14/06/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Stemmed Out Of A Penalty Order Of Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Central Circle, Raipur [For Short “Dcit”] Dt 27/01/2014 Passed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla PendseFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

M/S. Lam Research (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2131/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.2131/Bang/2016: Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Lam Research (India) Pvt.Ltd. The Asst.Commissioner Of Maruthi Infotech Centre, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1) V. Bangalore. A Block, 11/1 & 12/1 Amarjyothi Layout, Inner Ring Road Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aabcn2063Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajit Tolani, Ca & Sri.Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Respondent By : Ms.Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds & Sub- Grounds. All The Grounds Relate To Adjustment Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp). The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Vide Its Letter Dated 16.02.2021. The Assessee In Its Petition For Admission Of Additional Ground Submits That The Issues Raised In The Additional Grounds Is Purely Legal Issue & Would Not Require Any Investigation Of Fresh Facts. In This Context, The Learned Ar Has Relied On Various Case Laws. The Learned Departmental Representative Was Duly Heard.

For Appellant: Sri.Ajit Tolani, CA & Sri.Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(4)(b)Section 92C