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

Ramlal Bisram Katre, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result; the appeal of the a89e89ee is allowed for statistical purposes ITA No

ITA 371/NAG/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan 8Inghita Nos.365 To 371/Nag/2017 (Assessmcnt Years: 2003-04 To 2009-10) Shri Ramlal Bigram Katre Acit, Central Circle 2(1) Plot No. 474, Sonbaji Nagar Vs , Nagpur Nagpur 440008 Pan Agwpk9297M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By: Bhri Gitesh Kumat Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 22,11,2017 Order Per Bench This Group Of Seven Appeals Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act The Abge3See Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Nagpur Led 31.01.2017 For Assessment Years 2003-04 To 200G-10_ Pppel 2 4 Zv*Wu The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal Except Variation Of Figures Therefore All Appeals Were Clubbed; Heard Together Nd Are Decided By This Common Order For Appreciation Of Facts Wc Afe Referting The Grounds Of @Ppea} Lot A.. '2003-04, The Assessce Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 7 Tthe Ordler' Passed By Leamed Commissioner Of Irtcome Tcx (Appeals}-4, Nogpur U/ $ 1534 Rws 14303) Is Illegol, Inlunlic & Bad Int [Cll 2 The Leared Cornmissioner Of Income Tox (Appeals)-4 Erred Int Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Not Accepting Regular Books Of Accounts Preparedd Ort Ihe Bnsis %F Data Prepared By The Department Rmc Rejected The Sume Ancl Made Addition Of Rs, 16,06,037/ - The Snle Is Unijustified, Utwarranted & Excessive

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Bhri Gitesh Kumat
Section 153Section 253

Ramlal Bisram Katre, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result; the appeal of the a89e89ee is allowed for statistical purposes ITA No

ITA 370/NAG/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan 8Inghita Nos.365 To 371/Nag/2017 (Assessmcnt Years: 2003-04 To 2009-10) Shri Ramlal Bigram Katre Acit, Central Circle 2(1) Plot No. 474, Sonbaji Nagar Vs , Nagpur Nagpur 440008 Pan Agwpk9297M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By: Bhri Gitesh Kumat Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 22,11,2017 Order Per Bench This Group Of Seven Appeals Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act The Abge3See Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Nagpur Led 31.01.2017 For Assessment Years 2003-04 To 200G-10_ Pppel 2 4 Zv*Wu The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal Except Variation Of Figures Therefore All Appeals Were Clubbed; Heard Together Nd Are Decided By This Common Order For Appreciation Of Facts Wc Afe Referting The Grounds Of @Ppea} Lot A.. '2003-04, The Assessce Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 7 Tthe Ordler' Passed By Leamed Commissioner Of Irtcome Tcx (Appeals}-4, Nogpur U/ $ 1534 Rws 14303) Is Illegol, Inlunlic & Bad Int [Cll 2 The Leared Cornmissioner Of Income Tox (Appeals)-4 Erred Int Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Not Accepting Regular Books Of Accounts Preparedd Ort Ihe Bnsis %F Data Prepared By The Department Rmc Rejected The Sume Ancl Made Addition Of Rs, 16,06,037/ - The Snle Is Unijustified, Utwarranted & Excessive

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Bhri Gitesh Kumat
Section 153Section 253

Ramlal Bisram Katre, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result; the appeal of the a89e89ee is allowed for statistical purposes ITA No

ITA 369/NAG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan 8Inghita Nos.365 To 371/Nag/2017 (Assessmcnt Years: 2003-04 To 2009-10) Shri Ramlal Bigram Katre Acit, Central Circle 2(1) Plot No. 474, Sonbaji Nagar Vs , Nagpur Nagpur 440008 Pan Agwpk9297M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By: Bhri Gitesh Kumat Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 22,11,2017 Order Per Bench This Group Of Seven Appeals Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act The Abge3See Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Nagpur Led 31.01.2017 For Assessment Years 2003-04 To 200G-10_ Pppel 2 4 Zv*Wu The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal Except Variation Of Figures Therefore All Appeals Were Clubbed; Heard Together Nd Are Decided By This Common Order For Appreciation Of Facts Wc Afe Referting The Grounds Of @Ppea} Lot A.. '2003-04, The Assessce Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 7 Tthe Ordler' Passed By Leamed Commissioner Of Irtcome Tcx (Appeals}-4, Nogpur U/ $ 1534 Rws 14303) Is Illegol, Inlunlic & Bad Int [Cll 2 The Leared Cornmissioner Of Income Tox (Appeals)-4 Erred Int Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Not Accepting Regular Books Of Accounts Preparedd Ort Ihe Bnsis %F Data Prepared By The Department Rmc Rejected The Sume Ancl Made Addition Of Rs, 16,06,037/ - The Snle Is Unijustified, Utwarranted & Excessive

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Bhri Gitesh Kumat
Section 153Section 253

Ramlal Bisram Katre, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result; the appeal of the a89e89ee is allowed for statistical purposes ITA No

ITA 368/NAG/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan 8Inghita Nos.365 To 371/Nag/2017 (Assessmcnt Years: 2003-04 To 2009-10) Shri Ramlal Bigram Katre Acit, Central Circle 2(1) Plot No. 474, Sonbaji Nagar Vs , Nagpur Nagpur 440008 Pan Agwpk9297M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By: Bhri Gitesh Kumat Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 22,11,2017 Order Per Bench This Group Of Seven Appeals Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act The Abge3See Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Nagpur Led 31.01.2017 For Assessment Years 2003-04 To 200G-10_ Pppel 2 4 Zv*Wu The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal Except Variation Of Figures Therefore All Appeals Were Clubbed; Heard Together Nd Are Decided By This Common Order For Appreciation Of Facts Wc Afe Referting The Grounds Of @Ppea} Lot A.. '2003-04, The Assessce Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 7 Tthe Ordler' Passed By Leamed Commissioner Of Irtcome Tcx (Appeals}-4, Nogpur U/ $ 1534 Rws 14303) Is Illegol, Inlunlic & Bad Int [Cll 2 The Leared Cornmissioner Of Income Tox (Appeals)-4 Erred Int Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Not Accepting Regular Books Of Accounts Preparedd Ort Ihe Bnsis %F Data Prepared By The Department Rmc Rejected The Sume Ancl Made Addition Of Rs, 16,06,037/ - The Snle Is Unijustified, Utwarranted & Excessive

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Bhri Gitesh Kumat
Section 153Section 253

Ramlal Bisram Katre, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result; the appeal of the a89e89ee is allowed for statistical purposes ITA No

ITA 367/NAG/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan 8Inghita Nos.365 To 371/Nag/2017 (Assessmcnt Years: 2003-04 To 2009-10) Shri Ramlal Bigram Katre Acit, Central Circle 2(1) Plot No. 474, Sonbaji Nagar Vs , Nagpur Nagpur 440008 Pan Agwpk9297M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By: Bhri Gitesh Kumat Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 22,11,2017 Order Per Bench This Group Of Seven Appeals Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act The Abge3See Are Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Nagpur Led 31.01.2017 For Assessment Years 2003-04 To 200G-10_ Pppel 2 4 Zv*Wu The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal Except Variation Of Figures Therefore All Appeals Were Clubbed; Heard Together Nd Are Decided By This Common Order For Appreciation Of Facts Wc Afe Referting The Grounds Of @Ppea} Lot A.. '2003-04, The Assessce Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 7 Tthe Ordler' Passed By Leamed Commissioner Of Irtcome Tcx (Appeals}-4, Nogpur U/ $ 1534 Rws 14303) Is Illegol, Inlunlic & Bad Int [Cll 2 The Leared Cornmissioner Of Income Tox (Appeals)-4 Erred Int Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Not Accepting Regular Books Of Accounts Preparedd Ort Ihe Bnsis %F Data Prepared By The Department Rmc Rejected The Sume Ancl Made Addition Of Rs, 16,06,037/ - The Snle Is Unijustified, Utwarranted & Excessive

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Bhri Gitesh Kumat
Section 153Section 253