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. Zinka Logistics Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2637/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 178 M/S Zinka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd., No. 84/2, Ii Floor, Vaswani Presidio, Acit Circle 7 (1) (2), Panathur Main Road, Kadubessanahalli, Vs. Bengaluru Off Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560103 Pan : Aaacz8319C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Dinesh Kumr, Employee Of The Assessee Revenue By : Shree Priyadarshini Mishra, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) 7, Bengaluru Dated 29.10.2019. 2. In Course Of Hearing, The Employee Of The Assessee (Treated As Learned Ar Of The Assessee) Appeared & Submitted That The Assessee Wants To Avail Benefit Of Vivad Se Viswas Act 2020 But Final Decision In This Regard Is Yet To Be Taken & Therefore, This Appeal May Be Kept In Abeyance. At This Juncture, The Bench Pointed Out That This Bench Is Taking A Consistent View That Under These Facts, No Purpose Will Be Served By Keeping Such Appeals Pending & Therefore, Such Appeals Are Being Dismissed As Withdrawn & Liberty Is Being Granted To The Assessee To Approach This Tribunal For Recall Of This Order U/S 254 (2) Of I T Act In Case The Assessee Does Not Finally Opt For This Scheme Or Opts Page 2 Of 2

For Appellant: Shree Dinesh Kumr, Employee of the assesseeFor Respondent: Shree Priyadarshini Mishra, JCIT DR
Section 254

Shri. Naveen Kumar Gupta (HUF), Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2377/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2015 – 16 Mr. Naveen Kumar Gupta (Huf), Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.401, Sankalp Daffodill Apartments, Income Tax, 13Th Cross, Off Kalidasa Road, Circle – 1(1), Mysuru – 570 002. Mysuru. Pan : Aafhn 4889 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajiv Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Are Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit (A), Mysuru, Dated 30.08.2019. 2. Learned Ar Of The Assessee Stated That The Assessee Is Opting For Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. In The Course Of Hearing, It Was The Proposition Put Forward By The Bench That Under These Facts, The Appeals Of The Assessee May Be Dismissed As Withdrawn & Liberty May Be Granted To The Assessee To Approach This Tribunal For Recall Of This Order Under Section 254(2) Of The Act In Case The Assessee Finally Opts Out Of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. In Reply, It Was Submitted By Learned Ar Of The Assessee That If Such Liberty Is Granted To The Assessee, Then He Has No Objection About Dismissal Of This Page 2 Of 2

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 254(2)

M/S Dan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 760/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011 – 12 M/S Dan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Ic 48, 40 Feet Road, Hal Iii Stage, Dcit Circle – 11 (1), Indiranagar, Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560075 Pan : Aaacd5286G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) 2, Bengaluru Dated 07.03.2016. 2. In Course Of Hearing, Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Wants To Avail Benefit Of Vivad Se Viswas Act 2020 & Therefore, This Appeal May Be Kept In Abeyance Because Although The Assessee Has Filed Forma & Form 2 Under That Act But Form 3 Is Yet To Be Received From The Department. At This Juncture, The Bench Pointed Out That This Bench Is Taking A Consistent View That Under These Facts, No Purpose Will Be Served By Keeping Such Appeals Pending & Therefore, Such Appeals Are Being Dismissed As Withdrawn & Liberty Is Being Granted To The Assessee To Approach This Tribunal For Recall Of This Order U/S 254 (2) Of I T Act In Case The Assessee Does Not Finally Opt For This Scheme Or Opts Out Of That Scheme For Any Reason Or There Page 2 Of 2

For Appellant: Shree Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT DR
Section 254

M/S. Abhay Kumar Choudhary, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 Sri Abhay Kumar Choudhary, No. 109, 12Th Main, M C Layout, Ito Ward – 3 (2) (2), Vijayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560040 Pan : Aabhc9972L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 3 Bengaluru Dated 20.03.2019. 2. In Course Of Hearing, Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Has Opted To Avail Benefit Of Vivad Se Viswas Act 2020 & Has Already Filed Form 1 & 2 But Form 3 Is Still Awaited From The Department & Therefore, This Appeal May Be Kept In Abeyance. He Submitted A Letter Dated 28.09.2020 In This Regard. At This Juncture, The Bench Pointed Out That This Bench Is Taking A Consistent View That Under These Facts, No Purpose Will Be Served By Keeping Such Appeals Pending & Therefore, Such Appeals Are Being Dismissed As Withdrawn & Liberty Is Being Granted To The Assessee To Approach This Tribunal For Recall Of This Order U/S 254 (2) Of I T Act In Case The Page 2 Of 2

For Appellant: Shree S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT DR
Section 254