What is PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is duty-bound to dispose of appeals on their merits, even when proceeding ex-parte. This requires framing points for determination, providing detailed reasoning for the decision, and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mandated by Section 250(6).

How many judgments cite PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra?

132 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (279 CTR 614), spanning 2024 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250(6), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 148, Section 147, Section 144.

PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (279 CTR 614)

RAJENDRAN PALANIVELU,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PUDUKKOTTAI, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

ITA 3940/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3940/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 18.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234ASection 250Section 37(1)

…on of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of :- 5 -: the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are…

POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3509/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

…of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal ex-parte, he is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Page - 3 - of 4 ITA No.3506, 3507, 3508 & 3509/Chny/2025 7.0 In th…

POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTDQ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3508/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

…of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal ex-parte, he is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Page - 3 - of 4 ITA No.3506, 3507, 3508 & 3509/Chny/2025 7.0 In th…

POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3507/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

…of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal ex-parte, he is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Page - 3 - of 4 ITA No.3506, 3507, 3508 & 3509/Chny/2025 7.0 In th…

POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 3506/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Ms.Varsha Sridhar, Advocate for Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr.SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

…of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal ex-parte, he is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Page - 3 - of 4 ITA No.3506, 3507, 3508 & 3509/Chny/2025 7.0 In th…

SURESHKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2963/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2963/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Suresh Kumar, Income Tax Officer, No.25/74C, 9Th Street, Non-Corp Ward-6(1), Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. Chennai-600 019. [Pan: Bgcps5657N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.K.Meenakshisundaram, Itp प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.K.Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on Page - 2 - of 3 merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5.0 In this result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed…

CGR HALLMARKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSESING OFFICER,(ITO), COCHIN

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

ITA 864/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Cgr Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Building No. 62/1906, A, Sadanam Road Extn., M.G. Road S.O., Kochi 682016 [Pan: Aaccc4855G] Vs. Dcit, Corporte Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956 Engaged In The Business Of Refining Precious Metals & Minting Of Coins & Bars. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.10.2017 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 46,28,269/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 CGR Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Building NO. 62/1906, A, Sadanam Road Extn., M.G. Road S.O., Kochi 682016 [PAN: AACCC4855G] vs. DCIT, Corporte Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the…

ABDUL JALEEL,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 835/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Jaleel .......... Appellant Vapparakkal Kongad Ii, Parasery Kongad, Palakkad 678631 [Pan: Bfppa5260M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Palakkad.......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 07.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Trading/Wholesale Distributor Of The Products Of Idea Cellular Ltd. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Made Cash Deposits In Bank Account During Demonetisation Period Of Rs. 19,02,400/- The The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Palakkad (Hereinafter Called "The Ao")

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Jaleel .......... Appellant Vapparakkal Kongad II, Parasery Kongad, Palakkad 678631 [PAN: BFPPA5260M] vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD-1 & TPS, Palakkad.......... Respondent Assessee by: ------- None ------- Revenue by: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 07.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of…

PUTHUR KULANGARA JACOB PAULY,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 754/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly .......... Appellant Puthur Kulangara House, Alagappanagar P.O. Mukundapuram, Thrissur 680301 [Pan: Arapp8842J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Lokanathan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2016-17. As Per The Information Flagged In Accordance With The Risk Management Strategy Formulate By The Cbdt & Evidence In Possession, The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property In Ay 2015- 16 For A Consideration Of Rs. 1,14,80,000/-. Accordingly, The 2 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issues A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 06.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 05.04.2023 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 12,500/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 28.02.2024 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 45,73,680/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs. 45,61,180/- On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2016-17 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly .......... Appellant Puthur Kulangara House, Alagappanagar P.O. Mukundapuram, Thrissur 680301 [PAN: ARAPP8842J] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Lokanathan, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 04.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2…

KULATHUMKUZHIYIL MUHAMMED ASHRAF,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 622/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf .......... Appellant Kulathumkuzhiyil, Velloor, Kottayam 686501 [Pan: Bzvpa6849J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Act Was Filed For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information That The Appellant Received Interest Income From United India Insurance Company Ltd. Or Rs. 29,03,429/- During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 2 Kulathumkuzhiyil Muhammed Ashraf 31.03.2022. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 148 Nor U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Issued By The Ao Calling For Certain Information. In The Circumstances, The Ao Was Constrained To Pass Best Judgement Assessment By Bringing To Tax The Interest Income Of Rs. 29,03,429/- As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)

…tion of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position I am of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowe…

KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 707/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA Nos. 704 to 707/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2021-22 to 2023-24 Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha .......... Appellant Puthuvype, Azhikal P.O. Kochi 682508 [PAN: AAATK5117G] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(4), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri S. Venugopal, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 O R D E R These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur all dated 06.08.2025 for Ass…

KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD2(4) & TPS , KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA Nos. 704 to 707/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2021-22 to 2023-24 Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha .......... Appellant Puthuvype, Azhikal P.O. Kochi 682508 [PAN: AAATK5117G] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(4), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri S. Venugopal, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 O R D E R These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur all dated 06.08.2025 for Ass…

KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD2(4) & TPS , KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA Nos. 704 to 707/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2021-22 to 2023-24 Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha .......... Appellant Puthuvype, Azhikal P.O. Kochi 682508 [PAN: AAATK5117G] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(4), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri S. Venugopal, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 O R D E R These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur all dated 06.08.2025 for Ass…

KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO,NON CORP 2(4) , KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA Nos. 704 to 707/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2021-22 to 2023-24 Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha .......... Appellant Puthuvype, Azhikal P.O. Kochi 682508 [PAN: AAATK5117G] vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(4), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri S. Venugopal, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 O R D E R These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur all dated 06.08.2025 for Ass…

MAHESH KUMAR BHAGVAN DASS SINGLA,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 703/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mahesh Kumar Bhagavan Dass Singla .......... Appellant D1002, Falcon View, Secotr 6, Mohali 140308 [Pan: Ajzps6905Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-(1)(1), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nikhil Garg, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mahesh Kumar Bhagavan Dass Singla .......... Appellant D1002, Falcon View, Secotr 6, Mohali 140308 [PAN: AJZPS6905Q] vs. DCIT, Circle-(1)(1), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Nikhil Garg, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow [CIT(A)] dated 08.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. Bri…

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 699/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sapan UsretheFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 221Section 250(6)

…tion of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. Since identical issues and facts are involved in assessee’s appeal…

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 686/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sapan UsretheFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 221Section 250(6)

…tion of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. Since identical issues and facts are involved in assessee’s appeal…

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 685/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sapan UsretheFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 221Section 250(6)

…tion of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. Since identical issues and facts are involved in assessee’s appeal…

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 684/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sapan UsretheFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 221Section 250(6)

…tion of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. Since identical issues and facts are involved in assessee’s appeal…

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 683/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sapan UsretheFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 221Section 250(6)

…tion of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. Since identical issues and facts are involved in assessee’s appeal…

PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra

What is PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra

RAJENDRAN PALANIVELU,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PUDUKKOTTAI, PUDUKKOTTAI

POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTDQ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

POWER SECURITY CORP PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 5(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

SURESHKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

CGR HALLMARKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSESING OFFICER,(ITO), COCHIN

ABDUL JALEEL,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

PUTHUR KULANGARA JACOB PAULY,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

KULATHUMKUZHIYIL MUHAMMED ASHRAF,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO, KOCHI

KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD2(4) & TPS , KOCHI

KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD2(4) & TPS , KOCHI

KUDUMBI MAHAJANA SABHA,VYPIN vs. ITO,NON CORP 2(4) , KOCHI

MAHESH KUMAR BHAGVAN DASS SINGLA,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR