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

Sarash Worldwide Exports (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1146/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1146/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sarash Worldwide Exports The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Company Circle – Vi(1), No.8, Dr. B.N. Road, Vs. Chennai (North Boag Road), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaecs 4129B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Mr. Kaushik. M, Advocate अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai In Appeal No. I.T.A. No. 137/Cit(A)-15/13-14 Dated 17.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Mr. Kaushik. M, Advocate Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. :- 2 -: 3. It Was Submitted By The Learned Authorized Representative That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Delayed By 386 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit, Wherein It Is Submitted That Though The Papers Were Handed Over To The Assessee’S Chartered Accountants, However In The Chartered Accountant’S Office, The Senior Partner Therein Had Not Been Intimated & The Appeal Was Lost Track Off. Subsequently, When The Assessee Had Sought The Issue With The Chartered Accountant, The Papers Were Traced & The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly With 386 Days Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. It Was A Submission That The Delay Not Intentional & Non-Condonation Of The Delay Would Cause Substantial Loss To The Assessee.

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT

Dnv Gl Se-India Branch, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2379/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountat Member & Shri Pawan Singhit(Tp)A. No. 2379/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S Dnv Gl Se-India Dcit (It)-2(1)(2), Branch, 6Th Floor, Equinox Mumbai. Vs. Business Park, Tower Iii, Lbs Marg, Kurla Complex, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Aaacg7903R Appellant Respondent : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Appellant By Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra (Addl. Cit) Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2017 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Passed In Pursuance Of Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 08.12.2016 Under Section 144C(5) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee-Company Is A Tax Resident Of Germany & Engaged In The Business Of Inspection & Certification Services In Marine Industries, Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.11.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1,27,75,313/-. The Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny. In The Return Of Income The Assessee Reported International Transaction With It(Tp)A No. 2379 M 17-M/S Dnv Gl Se-India Branch

For Respondent: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 92C