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

Ald Automotive P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 907 & 109/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2179 & 601/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal Revenue By : Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 & 2008-09, U/S. 253 Of (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Arising Out Of The Orders By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31.12.2012. The Appeals Raise Two Issues, One Brought By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue, I.E., With Regard To: A) Depreciation On Lease Assets; & B) Transfer (Of A Part) Of Fleet Management Charges To Maintenance Accounts

For Appellant: Shri Brijmohan P. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad
Section 253

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive P.Tld, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 2179/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 907 & 109/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2179 & 601/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal Revenue By : Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 & 2008-09, U/S. 253 Of (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Arising Out Of The Orders By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31.12.2012. The Appeals Raise Two Issues, One Brought By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue, I.E., With Regard To: A) Depreciation On Lease Assets; & B) Transfer (Of A Part) Of Fleet Management Charges To Maintenance Accounts

For Appellant: Shri Brijmohan P. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad
Section 253

M/S Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Moradabad vs. ITO, Moradabad

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

ITA 1884/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Moradabad Sambhal, Moradabad Gir/Pan : Aaaak6125F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Akarsh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 08.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Bareilly, Dated 7Th February, 2013 Passed For The Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Mandi Samiti Without Analysis Of The Material On Record. 2. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Detailed Submissions Made By The Appellant Mandi Samiti On 21.03.2012, Which On Being Perused Are Self Serving. 3. Because As Of Now, The Appellant Mandi Samiti Has Been Granted Registration Under Section 12A Of The Act W.E.F. 1.4.2002 By The Ld. Cit, Moradabad, Therefore, The Impugned Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 2. This Appeal Is Delayed By 147 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein The Assessee Has Made The Following Contentions: 2. On Receipt Of The Appeal Order, The Secretary Of The Appellant Mandi Samiti Had Sent The Order To Sri Sanjay Kumar Ca (At Delhi). It Was Presumed By The Assessee Samiti That Whatever Steps Would Be Needed To Be Taken, The Same Would Be Taken By The Assessee'S Counsel.

Section 12ASection 253