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 366,470 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)

Sanjay Mittal, Ambikapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur

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

ITA 53/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 53/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sanjay Mittal, Hind Unitrade Pvt. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Old Bus Stand, Near Maya Tax, Central Circle, Bilaspur, Aaykar Lodge, Ambikapur (C.G.) 497001 Bhawan, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 Pan: Adtpm5911C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 25.11.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3 [Cit(A)] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250

…the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.). 7. We take note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliance consistently before the Authorities below. We find force in the submission of the Ld. 5 Sanjay Mittal vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur AR that the non-compliance on the part of the assessee is the sole reason for dismissal of the appeal on merit also. Considering t…

Uday Venture, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 824/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.824/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Uday Venture Singhania Bhawan, Subhash Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadfu7600D

For Appellant: None (petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…dication as per law after considering the delay aspect in interest of substantive justice. 3 Uday Venture Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) That the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of in the case 5. of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) had categorically held that the appellate authority has to adjudicate all the grounds on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground of delay or for non-prosecution. 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 befor…

River Bay City Capital Private Limited, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram

ITA 755/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…to re-adjudicate the same afresh. Our aforesaid view that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeal based on a speaking order 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: Page. No 7 I.T.A.No.755/VIZ/2025 River Bay City Capital Private Limited "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…

Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Matru Mandir

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

ITA 7627/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsalahuddin Abdul Rahim Vs. Ito – Ward 19(3)(1) Khan Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor B Block Flat No. 402 4Th F Matru Mandir, West Garden View, Mumbai - 400008 Mumbai - 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aadpk7525R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(1)

…ned CIT(A), NFAC is contrary to the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector v. Katiji (167 ITR 471), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (295 ITR 466), and of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). 8. The appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may condone the delay, set aside the impugned order, and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, or alternatively, decide the appeal on merits in the interest of justice.” 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 21 days in filing p…

Budhadev Jankalyan Samiti, Raipur vs. National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi

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

ITA 785/RPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.785/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2023-24 Budhadev Jankalyan Samiti 2, Ram Mandir, Vip Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aaaab6570C

For Appellant: Mrs. Dimple Warylani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)

…ng the final opportunity, the assessee shall duly comply with the hearing notices from the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Before parting, I also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court 6. of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) and also decision of the ITAT, Division Bench, Raipur in the case of Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan Vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.), ITA No. 553/RPR/2025, A.Y.2023-24, dated 13.11.2025. In these decisions, it was held that the appellate authority must visit each and every ground on merits and does not have power to dismiss any appea…

Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.03 & 04/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Agency, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aaics7656K

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

Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…ficient cause as per Section 249(3) of the Act, rather a mere excuse. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the 3 Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 03 & 04/RPR/2026 case of in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) had categorically held that the appellate authority has to adjudicate all the grounds on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground of delay or for non-prosecution. 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 befor…

Shyam Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Shree Krishna Udyog, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 841/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 841/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Krishna Udyog, 17A, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bhanpuri Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492010 Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aapfs5659E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 145Section 147aSection 148ASection 148A(1)(a)Section 148A(1)(d)Section 151Section 250

…the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.). 7. We take note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliance consistently before the Authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case ex- parte and not on the merit. Considering the facts in entirety and in the interest of justice, we are not offering any comment on merit of the case. We deem it fit to set aside the impugn…

Paresh Prashant Bhide, Pune vs. Ward 12(1), Pune, Dgit(Investigation)

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

ITA 3357/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3357/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Paresh Prashant Bhide, V Ward-12(1), Pune. Flat No.206, Ij Wing, S Meghmalhar, Dsk Vishwa, Dhayari, Pune – 411041. Pan: Bwjpb6765M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 14.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 22.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Incorrect Business Income:

Section 1Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

…that the ld.CIT(A) did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. 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 3 is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is ITA No.3357/PUN/2025 [A] 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 f…

Ashok Narayan Satav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 3355/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3355/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Narayan Satav, V The Income Tax Near Datta Mandir, Wadjai, S Officer, Ward-12(3), Wagholi, Haveli, Pune. Pune – 412207. Pan: Aypps9425G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak S Sasar Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 29.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Has Wrongly Confirmed The Addition Made By

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

…e assessee on merits. It is mandatory for ld.CIT(A) to decide each and every ground raised by assessee on merits as held by Hon’ble 5 ITA No.3355/PUN/2025 [A] Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra(HUF) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). 8. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16 February, 2026. VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 16 Feb, 2…

Navnath Pitambar Pawar, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 1286/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 1Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

Rajesh Kumar Singhania HUF, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 848/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.848/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Singhania Huf B-22/12, Sector-3, Udaya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadhr1548F

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

…t was duty bound to enquire in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act which was also not complied with by the first appellate authority. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) had categorically held that the appellate authority has to adjudicate all the grounds on merits and cannot dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground of delay or for non-prosecution. In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: 6 Rajesh Kumar Singhania HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) "8. From the aforesaid…

Pradeep Madhukar Thombare, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 3237/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3237/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pradeep Madhukar Thombre, V The Income Tax Officer, 101, Padmini Niwas, Prashant S Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Nagar, Ambajogai – 431517. Pan: Aappt7315L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubham N Rathi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

…the assessee for non-compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. ITA No.3237/PUN/2025 [A] 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…

Smita Narendra Sonawane, Nashik vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 3213/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3213/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smita Narendra Sonawane, V National Faceless Vadel, Malegaon, S Assessment Centre. Nashik – 423206 Pan: Ejtps9105Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251

…has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits including Legal Ground raised by the Assessee. ITA No.3213/PUN/2025 [A] 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…

Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, Pandhurli vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3194/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3194/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, V The Income Tax Officer, 471A, Shimpi Lane, Pandurli S Nashik. B.O., Pandhurli, Nashik – 422502 Pan: Atepc5427G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 26.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 20.04.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 250Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.3194/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, V The Income Tax Officer, 471A, Shimpi Lane, Pandurli s Nashik. B.O., Pandhurli, Nashik – 422502 PAN: ATEPC5427G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue by Shri Sadananda – JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 10/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. R…

Panchwadkar Shrihari Purshottam HUF, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 2928/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2928/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Panchwadkar Shrihari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purshottam Huf, Ward-2, Pandharpur 2085, Ashirvad Haridas Ves Pandharpur, Solapur – 413304 Maharashtra Pan : Aalhp4822N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

…deem it appropriate to remit the issues raised in the instant file to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication and deciding the issues in in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Needless to mention that assessee shall plead and prove its case in the set aside proceedings by furnishing all documentary evidences as called for by the ld.CIT(A). Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigila…

Vasant Popatlal Patel, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Kudal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2675/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2675 & 2674/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vasant Popatlal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patel Hardware, Ward Kudal. Vaibhavwadi, Sindhudurg – 416810 Income Tax Officer, Maharashtra Sindhudurg Pan : Azdpp1903D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 80T

…IT(A)/NFAC to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 12. Considering the totality of the case and in the larger interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that the issues on merit deserves to be remitted back to the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication. In view thereo…

Vasant Popatlal Patel, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Sindhudurg

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2674/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 80T

Ranjana Vijaykumar Sharma, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4) Range Code 3, Nagpur

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

ITA 642/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR (Through virtual) BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.642/NAG/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Ranjana Vijaykumar ITO, Ward-3(4), Nagpur. Sharma, vs. Flat No. 210, Fortune Empire, beltarodi Road, Besa, Nagpur -440022 PAN : BQOPS 0948 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shubham Jain, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 ORDER This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

Nilesh Prakashchand Surana, Washim vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Akola

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

ITA 628/NAG/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

…ppropriate that assessee deserves one more opportunity and accordingly, restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) has held that Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits, even in an ex-parte order and following the said ratio, I hereby direct the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate all the issues raised in the instant appeal by way of passing speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall grant f…