How many judgments cite CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)?

659 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 250(6), Section 251(1)(a), Section 251(2), Section 147, Section 246A.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

297 CTR 614High Court2017#86 most cited

What is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) authority for?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

659

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF · Section 250(6) Income Tax Act · CIT(A) appeal dismissal · non-prosecution of appeal · default in appearance appeal · ex parte order merits · duty to decide on merits · Bombay High Court 297 CTR 614

Also reported as

240 Taxmann 133

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 147 Section 246A Section 251(1)(b)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 251(2)section 251(1)(a)section 250(4)section 251(1)section 246a section 246 section 251 section 250(6)section 249(3)section 24 non-speaking order speaking order

Judgments citing CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

Nagaraju Donthula, Adilabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Manchiriyal

ITA 430/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala

Section 147Section 148

…mandate of law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Sudhakar Puri, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1207/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…ndate of law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of 7 Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Jet Tech Systems, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1)(3), Noida

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5306/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 143Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5306/Del/2024, A.Y. 2012-13 Jet Tech Systems Income Tax Officer, E 24 Sector 55, Noida Ward 5(1)(3), Uttar Pradesh Vs. Noida PAN: AAHFJ3702F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/04/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

Late Shanti Mohta, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 71/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shanti Mohta 15/391, Jawahar Nagar, Ravigram S.O Chhattisgarh- 492 001 Pan: Aldpm6184F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

…mandate of law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: 8 Late Shanti Mohta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make f…

Geeta Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 125/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Geeta Patel House No.B-13, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aeqpp8409Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Office, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…sted with 4 Geeta Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Mahesh Yadav Alam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 406/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.405 and 406/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years : 2013-14 and 2015-16) Mahesh Yadav Alam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward –15(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AVGPA2400H. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Pankaj Sancheti, CA. Assessee Represented b…

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

…andate of law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Pasala Jojamma, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 172/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Ms. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…of the law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High 7 Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

The Sankhli Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Sankhli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Panaji

ITA 58/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 058/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr Amol Arlekar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 40Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 058/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Sankhali Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Shreya Shreya, Gokulwadi, Sankhali, Goa-403505 PAN : AADAT9594J . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Amol Arlekar [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 09/…

Pinnac Parijaat Co.Op. Hsg. Society Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 531/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.531/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pinnac Parijaat Co. Op. V The Income Tax Officer, Housing Society Limited, S Ward-2(2), Pune. S.No.35, Hissa No.1,3,4,5,11,12, Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Pan: Aadap9430D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)/[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On 24.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 3,13,990/-Instead Of 1,01,830/-

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…reasons. Similarly, ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds. In this case, assessee had filed return of income within the due date. 2.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : ITA No.531/PUN/2025 [A] Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as fo…

Priya Prasad Shirodkar, Calangute vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Panaji

ITA 53/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 053/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Priya Prasad Shirodkar H.No. 4/96, Prabhuwaddo, Calangute, Goa Pan : Akipg9924D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1065516948(1) Dt. 10/06/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 053/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Priya Prasad Shirodkar H.No. 4/96, Prabhuwaddo, Calangute, Goa PAN : AKIPG9924D . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the Assessee Revenue by : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; Th…

Praksh Pushparaj Golcha, Andheri (W) vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4417/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpraksh Pushparaj Golcha, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 6A, Shivkrupa H Wing, बनाम Income Tax– 24(3), Old Nagardas Road, M/O Finance, Income Tax Andheri(W), Department, National Faceless Mumbai-400 069, Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpg9404H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr.Ruturaj H. Gurjar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Praksh Pushparaj Golcha, v/s. Assistant Commissioner of 6A, Shivkrupa H Wing, बनाम Income Tax– 24(3), Old Nagardas Road, M/o Finance, Income Tax Andheri(W), Department, National Faceless Mumbai-400 069, Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABPG9404H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Mr.Ruturaj H. Gurjar,AR Respondent by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani,(Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 13.02.2025 Date of Pronouncemen…

Date Property Trust, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(1), Pune

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

ITA 496/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.496/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Date Property Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, 265 A/3, Yashwant Building, S Ward-12(1), Pune. Shaniwarpeth, Opp.Omkareshwar Temple, Lokmanyanagar, S.O.Pune, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaatd4736C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt.Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, 30.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2023-24. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…, ld.CIT(A) has merely confirmed the order under section 143(1) without giving reasons and without discussing the merits of the case. 4.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of t…

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…fore him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act. This view is also taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.). A bare glace of the order of the CIT(A) shows that CIT(A) has not addressed itself on the various points placed for its determination at all and dismissed the appeal of assessee for default in non-appearance. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays role of both adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) could not ha…

Shivajs Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 185/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 185/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2016-17) Shivas Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o. Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Ward-1(4), 5th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Jodhpur -3 42001. PAN No. AARCS1990F Assessee by Smt. Raksha Birla, C.A. and Shri Mehul Jangid, Advocate Revenue by Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R.) Date of Hearing 10.02.2025. Date of Pronouncement 24.03.2025. DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.:…

Sarda Energy Limited, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh BeganiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 56

…f law. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in summarily dismissing the appeal by not rendering any decision on merits which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 2 Sarda Energy Ltd. ITA no.534/Nag./2024 (Bom.). It is prayed that the Appellate Order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") may please be cancelled/set-aside on this ground alone. GROUND NO. II 2(i) That the Reassessment Notice was issued on the strength of Approval obtained under sec.151 from the Ld. Pr.CIT-1, Nagpu…

Navchaitanya Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Atti, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Satara

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

ITA 2225/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) and to restore the issue raised on merits for necessary adjudication by Ld. CIT(A). Though Ld. DR oppose his request, we considering the facts of the case and also the contents of the application for condonation of delay filed before Ld. CIT(A), decide to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

…it appropriate to restore the issue raised on merits in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh keeping into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT (Central) vs. Premkumar Arjunda (2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Thus, effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 3 4. In the result, the…

Bhimashankar Ssk Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT- Circle-8, Pune

ITA 1147/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1147/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13 Bhimashankar Ssk Ltd., V The Acit, A/P. Pargaon, Tal.Ambegaon, S Circle-8, Pune. Dist-Pune – 412406. Pan: Aaaab0949G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavle – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned Nfac –Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Delhi, Has Erred In Disallowing & Adding Back An Amount Of Rs.42,23,17,760/- On Account F Excess Cane Price Paid Farmers.

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(19)Section 250Section 80ISection 80P(2)(d)

…. As per section 251 of the Act, it is ITA No.1147/PUN/2024 [A] mandatory for the ld.CIT(A) to decide each ground of appeal on merit. 6. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of t…

Sachin Pandurang Alhat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Pune

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

ITA 8/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.8/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Pandurang Alhat, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.202, Bld No.P6, A S Ward-10(2), Pune. Wing, Gandarwanagari, Pune – 412501. Pan:Ahepa6396E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak & Mrs. Arrchena Sheety Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 05.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Appellant Has Not Been Duly Represented By His Iip In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & Have Again Not Been Duly

Section 148Section 250

…kar Vs. CWT reported in 233 ITR 480, accordingly, all the grounds raised in this appeal as reproduced in para 2 supra are dismissed.” 4.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of t…