Which cases are most cited on Section 254(1)?

S. Ranganathan J in Yadu Hari Dalmia v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central) (126 ITR 48) — 77 citing judgments; Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT (OSD), Ahmedabad (346 ITR 228) — 74 citing judgments; National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT (367 ITR 85) — 62 citing judgments; STATE OF GUJARAT v. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (6 SCC 21) — 53 citing judgments; Delhi in CIT v. Best Plastics (P) Ltd. (295 ITR 256) — 41 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 254(1)?

BharatTax indexes 1,265 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.363

Section 254(1) falls under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 363 (Orders of Appellate Tribunal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 363 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 254(1) is S. Ranganathan J in Yadu Hari Dalmia v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central) (126 ITR 48), cited in 77 of the 1,265 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 254(1)

S. Ranganathan J in Yadu Hari Dalmia v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central)

126 ITR 48 · 1980 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 68 was introduced to codify and clarify existing judicial principles regarding unexplained cash credits and to plug loopholes, rather than to introduce entirely new law. The Assessing Officer must conduct exhaustive inquiries and gather material before making any additions for unexplained credits.

Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT (OSD), Ahmedabad

346 ITR 228 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

For a valid reassessment under Section 147, the Assessing Officer must record substantive reasons to believe income has escaped assessment, as a mere boilerplate statement of non-disclosure or non-filing is insufficient. Furthermore, a taxpayer's disclosure is not considered full and true if it requires further inquiry by the AO to ascertain material details, especially under Explanation 1 to Section 147.

National Thermal Power Corporation v. CIT

367 ITR 85 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must consider fresh claims made during assessment proceedings, as income tax proceedings are not adversarial and income should be computed according to law, unless a statutory bar exists. The Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. does not restrict appellate authorities from entertaining new claims.

STATE OF GUJARAT v. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

6 SCC 21 · 2018 · Reported

citing judgments

Delhi in CIT v. Best Plastics (P) Ltd.

295 ITR 256 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Assessment orders passed by an Assessing Officer are liable to be set aside if they disregard binding instructions or circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), especially concerning the selection of returns for scrutiny. The CBDT circulars are binding on all officers of the Income-tax department.

CIT v. Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd.

180 Taxmann 87 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for making advertisement films is revenue expenditure if it relates to an ongoing business. However, if the expenditure is for a brand to be used in a business yet to commence, it is capital expenditure.

Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

53 ITR 283 · 1964 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Payment received for refraining from carrying on a competitive business is treated as a capital receipt. High Courts may misinterpret prior Supreme Court judgments like Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. in their decisions.

Jayvant Singh Vaghela v. ITO

40 Taxmann.com 491 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Appeals should normally be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds like delay, unless there is gross negligence or mala fide intention by the assessee.

CIT v. Associated Cables P. Ltd.

286 ITR 596 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

Retention money withheld by a contractee is not taxable in the year it is retained, but only in the year the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and the amount becomes due to the assessee.

CIT v. Devdas Naik

366 ITR 12 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Deduction under Section 54 or 54F for capital gains can be allowed even if multiple residential units are acquired, provided they are used as a single residential unit or can be combined into one for the purpose of residence.

Judgments on Section 254(1)

Shri Vrajendra Jagjivandas Thakkar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vrajendra Jagjivandas Thakkar, I.T.O., 6/2060-61, Office No. 107, Vedant Ward 2(3)(8), Vs. Building, Bholabhai Ni Sheri, Aayakar Bhawan, Mahidharpura, Surat. Majura Gate, Surat. Pan No. Aabpt 5930 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

Hirenkumar Pravinchandra Desai, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir. 2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 187/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 189/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh, I.T.O., A-13, Aalekh Co-Operative Society, Near Ward-1(4)(6), Vs. N.K. Petroleum, Zadeshwar, Bharuch. Bharuch-392011. Pan No. Akfpp 3523 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

Rasiklal Bavchandbhai Akbari, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 44/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rasiklal Bavchandbhai Akbari, I.T.O., 307, Santkrupa Apartment, Ward-3(3)(4), Vs. Matru Shakti Road, Kapodara Surat. Char Rasta, Surat, Gujarat- 395006. Pan No. Agmpa 6060 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

Gujarat Mitra Private Limited, Surat vs. Asstt. Director Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 34/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Private Limited, A.D.I.T. (Cpc, Ward No.0, Gujarat Mitra Bhavan, Banglore. Vs. Soni Faliya, Chowk Bazar, Surat. Pan No. Aabcg 2528 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

Jayshreeben Nilamkumar Desai, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari

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

ITA 176/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayshreeben Nilamkumar Desai, I.T.O., Saket, New Patel Nagar Society, Chhapra Ward-3, Vs. Road, Navsari. Navsari. Pan No. Ambpd 8733 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

ITO - 28(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Surekha Anil Lokre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3238/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)

Rang Avdhut Mandir Trust, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bardoli

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 336/SRT/2022[2017-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Apr 2023AY 2017-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rang Avdhut Mandir Trust, I.T.O., 208, Sarvoday Nagar Society, Bardoli, Ward-1, Vs. Surat. Bardoli. Pan No. Aaaar 3731 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80J

Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

ITA 38/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, I.T.O., (I) C/O Surat Ahmedabad Transport (P) Ward(3)(1)(1), Vs. Ltd., Near Hotel Amisha Unapani Road, Surat. Lal Darwaja, Surat-395003. (Ii) Kamaldeep H. Dang, 79A Dang Farm, Silver Oak Road, Gadaipur, Ghitroni, South West Delhi, Delhi-110030 Mo. No. 9350581314 Pan No. Acepd 3949 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.1(1)(1), Surat vs. Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 345/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Vs. Surat. Maharashtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aaace 8700 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

Jaykant Uttamchand Shah, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 276/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navasari

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

ITA 263/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.263/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Sureshbhai Sukhabhai Mistry Income Tax Officer, 130, Kumbhar Faliya, Via Ward-5, Navsari Vs Satem, Tal: Navsari, Dist. Navsari-396466 Pan No: Ammpm 4411 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sujesh C Suratwala, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 31.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.09.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Suresshbhai S Mistry “1. The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Nfac/Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Addition To The Total Income Of The Assessee Which Is Primarily Agriculture Inn Nature & In Fact Exempted To Tax

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

Shree Salabatpura Urban Co-Op[. Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 175/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shree Salabatpura Urban Co. Op. D.C.I.T. Credit Society Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. 4/2424, Salabatpura Main Road, Surat. Salabatpura, Surat-395003. Pan No. Aaaas 3509 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 80P

Tarit F. Das, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.1, Bharuch

In the result this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 105/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Tarit F Das, A.C.I.T., Aaa-49, Shreeji Sadan Bungalows, Circle-1, Vs. Swaminarayan Mandir Road, Bharuch. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch. Pan No. Acgpd 8543 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

Mahamadali Adam Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Offocer, Ward 1(2), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 90/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mahamadali Adam Patel Income Tax Officer, Apana Nagar Society, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Vs At P.O. Vagara, Bharuch-392001 Pan No: Adxpp 0699 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Krutarth K Desai, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 03.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 27.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)/ Assessing Officer Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Appellant Was Hold The Status Of Agriculturist, During The Year Under Consideration I.E. Ay 2017-18. The Entire Money Received Was The Income From Agriculture Activities Which Are Wholly Exempt Mahamadali Adam Patel From Taxation Purview. Hence The Appellant Is Not Liable To Pay Any Tax On This Income Addition Made By The Authority & Hence This Appeal. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Appreciating The Factual Matrix Of The Case & Therefore The Addition Deserves To Be Deleted.

Section 144Section 254(1)