Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.363

Section 254(2) 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(2) is CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98), cited in 818 of the 902 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 254(2)

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court
818
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

Sabarkhanta Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. ClT
203 ITR 1027 · 1993 · Supreme Court
98
citing judgments

Co-operative societies or banks engaged in both agricultural and non-agricultural activities are entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, limited only to the profits derived from agricultural activities, not 100% of their gross profits.

CIT v. NIIT Ltd.
318 ITR 289 · 2009 · High Court
79
citing judgments

A composite agreement, even if charges are broken down, cannot be dissected to apply Section 194I for TDS on rent when the agreement is a business arrangement for mutual obligations.

CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel
164 ITR 102 · 1987 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus to establish any claim for deduction of expenditure when computing taxable income, especially when parties from whom purchases were allegedly made deny such transactions before sales tax authorities.

Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT
269 ITR 71 · 2004 · High Court
39
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer (AO) is expected to conduct a detailed inquiry during assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) and should not accept the assessee's claims at face value. A failure to investigate glaring issues amounts to a lack of proper inquiry.

CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
313 ITR 321 · 2009 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to demonstrate the assessee's failure to make a true and full disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening must specifically allege such a failure, and mere absence of an assessment cannot justify reopening beyond four years.

CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Limited
249 ITR 306 · 2001 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

For reopening an assessment, the Assessing Officer must have a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, not merely a reason to suspect. The Assessing Officer needs tangible material to form this belief.

254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT
295 ITR 466 · 2007 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record that prejudices a party is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act.

CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd.
135 ITR 546 · 1982 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus to prove the genuineness of purchases, especially when suppliers have denied sales, and mere reliance on previous assessment orders is insufficient.

CIT v. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited
229 ITR 285 · 1998 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Amounts collected by an assessee under a statutory obligation and directed to be kept in a separate account for a specific purpose, such as a molasses storage fund, do not belong to the assessee and should be excluded from its total income.

Judgments on Section 254(2)

M/S. Lsi India Research & Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 107/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos.2200/Bang/2017 & 107/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Lsi India Research & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Private Limited, Income Tax, Block C, Global Technology Park, Circle – 4(1)(1), Devarabeesanahalli, Marathahalli, Bengaluru. Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaecm 1677 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanit(Tp)A No.2200/Bang/2017 Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.10.2017 Of The Dcit, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), In Relation To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. It(Tp)A No.107/Bang/2020 Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31.10.2019 By Dcit, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bengaluru, In Relation To Assessment Year 2015-16. It(Tp)A Nos.2200/Bang/2017 & 107/Bang/2020 Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

Eygbs (India) LLP, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1777/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1777/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Eygbs (India) Llp Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Eygbs (India) Income Tax, Private Limited & Successor To Eyme Circle – 1(1), International Tax, Technologies Private Limited) Bangalore. Rmz Infinity, Tower C, 3Rd Floor, Old Madras Road, K. R. Puram, Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aahfe 0349 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Keerthi Narayan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal Filed Is By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.06.2019 Of Cit(A)-12, Bangalore, In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Dispute In This Appeal Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 & Has Filed Form Nos.1 & 2 & Is Awaiting To Receive Form 3 From The Designated Authority. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Prayed For Keeping The Proceedings In Abeyance Till The Assessee Received Form 3. It(It)A No.1777/Bang/2019 Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Smt. Keerthi Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 254(2)

M/S Lsi India Research & Development Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner F Income Tax Circle-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 2200/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos.2200/Bang/2017 & 107/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Lsi India Research & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Private Limited, Income Tax, Block C, Global Technology Park, Circle – 4(1)(1), Devarabeesanahalli, Marathahalli, Bengaluru. Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaecm 1677 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanit(Tp)A No.2200/Bang/2017 Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.10.2017 Of The Dcit, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), In Relation To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. It(Tp)A No.107/Bang/2020 Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31.10.2019 By Dcit, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bengaluru, In Relation To Assessment Year 2015-16. It(Tp)A Nos.2200/Bang/2017 & 107/Bang/2020 Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)