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)

Shri Kantilal Giridharlal Jain, Hospet vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Hospet

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1572/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16 Sri Kantilal Giridharilal Jain, Arihant Complex, Ito Ward – 1, Hampi Road, Vs. Hospet Hospet Pan : Aadhj2545N 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) Gulbarga Dated 23.02.2018. 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 Assessee Does Not Finally Opt For This Scheme Or Opts Out Of That Scheme For Any Page 2 Of 2

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

Sri. Nityanand M. Shet, Laxmeshwar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Gadag

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1443/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. George George Kassessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Nityanand M. Shet, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Mahableshwar Jewellers, Ward – 1, ‘Aayakar Bhavan’, Near Mailarling Temple, Peth Bana, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Laxmeshwar – 582 116. Gadag – 582 101. Pan : Afkps 1238 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A), Hubballi Dated 29.03.2019. 2. Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Moved An Application On 23.09.2020 In Which It Is 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 Appeal 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 The Liberty Is Granted To The Page 2 Of 2

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 254(2)

M/S Hilltop Granites Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 824/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2012 – 13 M/S. Hilltop Granites Pvt. Ltd., No. 14/1, Bannerghatta Road, Ito Ward – 3 (1) (3), Near Mico Back Gate, Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560030 Pan : Aaach7398P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Saurabh Jain, C. A. Revenue By : Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2020 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 10.02.2017. 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 Dismissed As Withdrawn. He Submitted That A Letter Is Filed By The Assessee With The Registry Of The Tribunal On 09.09.2020 In This Regard. He Also Submitted That The Tribunal Should Grant Liberty 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 Is Any Problem Under That Act. Page 2 Of 2

For Appellant: Shree Saurabh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl. CIT DR
Section 254

Sri. Korangrapady Prakash Shetty, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2554/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16 Sri Korangrapady Prakash Shetty, #09, Asha, Ali Asker Road, Acit Circle – 1 (2) (2), Off: Cunningam Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560052 Pan : Agaps5631F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2020 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) – 1 Bengaluru Dated 30.08.2019. 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. He Submitted A Letter Dated 07.09.2020 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 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 S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT DR
Section 254