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
77
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
74
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
62
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
53
citing judgments
Delhi in CIT v. Best Plastics (P) Ltd.
295 ITR 256 · 2007 · High Court
41
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
40
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
29
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
26
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
25
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
25
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)