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

Dwelling Appliances Private Limited - Previously Known As Adneet Trade Links Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2642/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2017-18 Dwelling Appliances Private V. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(3), (Previously Known As Adneet Delhi. Trade Links Private Limited), C-54, Shiv Gali, Kotla Mubarikpur, Delhi – 110 003. Pan : Aagca7676P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing). Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Senior Dr. Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2026 Order This Appeal In Ita No.2642/Del/2026 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 18.01.2024 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai(Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059846305(1)) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) , Which Appeal In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 29.11.2019 Passed By The Learned Assessing Office Under Section 143(3) Of The Act(Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2019- 20/102317809(1)). 2. The Appeal Is Filed Belatedly By 725 Days Beyond The Time Prescribed U/S 253(3) Of The 1961 Act. The Assessee Has Duly Filed An Affidavit Dated 12.03.2026 Praying For Condonation Of Delay. It Is Submitted In The Said Affidavit That The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee Namely Shri Mahesh Karia Who Was Representing The Matter Before Ld. Cit(A) Died In February, 2026 & A New Counsel Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Was Appointed In The First Week Of March, 2026 & Only Then, The Assessee Came To Know That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Already Dismissed The Appeal Of Assessee By Passing An Ex-Parte

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(3)