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)

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee as ex-parte and in limine on non- prosecution, without adjudicating the merits of the case, which is not permissible in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Premkumar Arjunda(2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay), wherein it has been held as under :- “Section 251(1)(a) and (b), along with the explanation in Section 251(2) of the Act, mandates that the CIT(A) must apply their mind to all issues arising 7 from the order being appealed, regardless of whether the appellant specifically raised them [1]. …………………………………………...The law does not empower the…

Jastej Gorowara, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 277/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Ind/2025 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16) Jastej Gorowara, Vs. CIT(A), Prop. M/s. Ranjit’s Golden Oak National Faceless Appeal Resort, N.H. 12, Misrod, Bhopal, Centre, Madhya Pradesh-462047 Delhi PAN No. AIOPG5412A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Govind Rinwa, CA Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23 .12.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JM: These two appe…

Jastej Gorowara, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 276/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

M/S Kubera Dal & Besan Millsz, Pune vs. CIT Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1966/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1966/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Kubera Dal & Besan V Dy.Cit, Millsz, S Circle-5, Pune. 21 To 24, Marketyard, Gultekadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aakfk3139J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Advocate Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake – (On Rotation Duty) Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 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.2015-16 Dated 24.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

…d.CIT(A). Be it as it may be, it is a fact that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by Assessee on merits. 7. 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…

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(1)Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 PAN:AAAJJ0226F . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 09/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal is filed by the a…

Kashaf Batatawala, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(1), Piramal Chamber

ITA 5703/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 154Section 250(6)Section 90

…the Assessee before the Learned CIT(A), the Learned CIT(A) was required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. [CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) 25/04/2016]. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case as narrated hereinabove, we set-aside the impugned order, dated 15/07/2025, passed the Learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal and restore the appeal to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to decide the appeal on merits as per law after granting the Assess…

Bharati Nimba Patil, Nashik vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 503/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bharati Nimba Patil, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. S. No.235, P. No.53, 54, Shri Datta Krupa Kalanagar Mhasarul, Behind Aakash Petrol Pump, Nashik- 422004. Pan : Akapp7755P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.48,75,000 Made By The A.O. In The Ex-Parte Asst. Order U/S 144 R.Ws. 147 Passed During Covid Period, By Taxing The Entire Consideration Received On Sale Of Agricultural Land As Stcg Without Verifying The Contention Raised In Form 35 That The Impugned Land Was Rural Agricultural

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

…to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the appellate order passed by CIT(A) in limine without deciding the issue on merits is not justified in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Premkumar Arjundas Luthra [(2017) 297 CTR 614] and hence, the said appeal may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a speaking order on merits afresh. 5] The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly suppor…

Anwar Husain Mehboob Shaikh, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2561/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2561/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anwar Husain Mehboob V The Income Tax Officer, Shaikh, S Jalgaon. H. No.K 258/I Railway North Area, Bhusawal, Jalgaon – 425201. Pan: Bodps9742F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 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.2018-19 Dated 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 31.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…f the appellant amounting to INR 10,56,780/- 3 ITA No.2561/PUN/2025 [A] 6. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 5. 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…

The Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. ( in Liquidation), Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward- -1, Dhule

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

ITA 1927/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 21(2)Section 250Section 80P

…adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. 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…

Katrapally Venumadhav, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1396/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270ASection 282

…ermination and then render a decision on each of the point which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Our 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). The Hon’ble High Court in the aforementioned case 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…

Katrapally Venumadhav, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1395/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270ASection 282

Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6591/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Income Tax Officer, B-502, Yash Paradise, Sector 8, Vs. Ward 42 (3)(1), Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing A Duly Sworn Affidavit Dated 13-09-2025 Has Claimed That The Assessee Has Shifted To Dubai & Thus For The Last Many Years Is Not Residing In India. However, During The Recent Trip In India, The Assessee Became Aware About The Ongoing Appeal Proceedings & Passing Of The Impugned Order & Therefore, The Delay Of 168 Days Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Mala-Fide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reasons.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 14Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

…e but not on the merits of the case and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, specifically in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that in fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The powers of the CIT(A) is co- terminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act…

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) Bandra West II Branch, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6312/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

…s constrained to decide the appeal of the assessee, as ex-parte and for non- prosecution, however, without adjudicating the merits of the case, which is not permissible in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Premkumar Arjunda(2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay), wherein it has been held as under :- “Section 251(1)(a) and (b), along with the explanation in Section 251(2) of the Act, mandates that the CIT(A) must apply their mind to all issues arising from the order being appealed, regardless of whether the appellant specifically raised them [1]. …………………………………………...The law does not empower the C…

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) Bandra West II Branch, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6310/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

Our Vision Entertainment LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4724/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Our Vision Entertainment Income Tax Officer Llp, 15(1)(1), Office No.304, Twin Complex B 103, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Block, Andheri East Mumbai - 400020 Opp Marol Fire Brigade Maharashtra - 400 059 Pan: Aaefo8646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 250

…ating the issues on merits finally and therefore, on this count as well, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for passing the order on merits, specifically in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Premkumar Arjunda (2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay), wherein it has been held as under: - “Section 251(1)(a) and (b), along with the explanation in Section 251(2) of the Act, mandates that the CIT(A) must apply their mind to all issues arising from the order being appealed, regardless of whether the appellant specifically raised them [1]. …………………………………………...The law does not empower the C…

Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, Pune vs. The ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 2276/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2276/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.117/1, Chowisawdi, S. Ward-8(3), Pune. Haveli, Pune – 412105. Pan: Absfs4340L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 31.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Addl./Jt.Cit(A), Panaji Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appellant'S Appeal Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard. Appellant Assures To Make All The Compliances Before The

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. 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 3 ITA No.2276/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…

Savita Mitkari, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2193/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2193/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Savita Mitkari, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.302, G4, Gangadham S Pmt Phase Ii, Market Yard, Building Pune 411037. Commercial Complex, Swargate, Pune 411037. Pan: Arppm8052L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sagar Kale Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 06/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 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.2011-12 Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…y dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. 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 Prakashchand Aanchaliya, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1 (1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2345/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 250(4)

…uninterested in pursuing of his own appeal. 9. As a result, the appeal is held to be without merit and the same is hence dismissed.” 5. 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…

Vishnu Ganpat Gaikwad, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2138/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2138/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Ivanna Hazel SoansFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar

Section 10(37)Section 147

…all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of 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) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant a…

Balwant Vasantrav Jadhav, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1101/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1101/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Udol Raj Singh

Section 147Section 250(6)

…remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act 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 3 Balwant Vasantrav Jadhav (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also…