← All Phrases

“Section 251(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(2)645 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 251(2) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 251(2)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

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.

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT
251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court
253
citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.
326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court
196
citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

CIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank
251 ITR 194 · 2001 · Supreme Court
106
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative bank from statutory investments or mandatory deposits, which are essential for conducting its banking business, qualifies as business income and is exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

PCIT v. Chain House International (P) Ltd.
98 Taxmann.com 47 · 2018 · High Court
104
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily reject a share valuation report prepared by an expert using recognized methods like NAV or DCF for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) without providing valid reasons to demonstrate its perversity or unreasonableness.

Judgments citing Section 251(2)

Ranjana Devi, Maur Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bathinda

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether

S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 817/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 816 & 817/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) S.S. Industries, Plot No.610, 611, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 620, 621, Urla Industrial Area, Village- Tax, Central Circle 1, Raipur, Central Accholi, Distt.-Raipur, C.G.-492003 Revenue Building, Raipur, C. G. Pan: Aclfs9015L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 20/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

determination arisen for his consideration. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of 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

S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 816/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 816 & 817/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) S.S. Industries, Plot No.610, 611, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 620, 621, Urla Industrial Area, Village- Tax, Central Circle 1, Raipur, Central Accholi, Distt.-Raipur, C.G.-492003 Revenue Building, Raipur, C. G. Pan: Aclfs9015L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 20/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

determination arisen for his consideration. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Fortune Metals Ltd., Ludhiana

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 961/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.961/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit (Central Cricle -1) M/S Fortune Metals Ltd. बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Circuit House, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana Vs. (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-8508-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.36/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.961/Chandi/2025] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Fortune Metals Ltd. Dcit (Central Cricle -1) बनाम/ Opp. Circuit House, Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Vs. (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-8508-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

Ludhiana has erred in rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) himself, without giving a notice of enhancement as stipulated in section 251(2) of the Act and thus, the finding of CIT(A) of rejection of books of accounts is not proper. The Ld. Sr. DR advanced arguments

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1369/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

order passed by ld.CIT(A) contending that 1d.CIT(A) failed to address the issue arising from the impugned order as per Explanation to section 251(2) of the Act and also erred in not adopting a rational and pragmatic approach while adjudicating the condonation of delay. 9. We have heard

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 250

order passed by ld.CIT(A) contending that ld.CIT(A) failed to address the issue arising from the impugned order as per Explanation to section 251(2) of the Act and also erred in not the condonation of delay. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

such appellate order. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him/her, whether ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of 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

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

such appellate order. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him/her, whether ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of 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

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

such appellate order. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him/her, whether ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of 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

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3233/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 69A

cash applied towards purchase of unregistered land Dhokawade, Alibaug, without providing a show cause notice or a reasonable opportunity of being heard under section 251(2) of the Act. The Appellants therefore submit that the enhancement of Rs. 3,16,292 is bad in law and should be deleted Ground ... applied towards purchase of unregistered land at Dhokawade, Alibaug, without providing a show cause notice or a reasonable opportunity of being heard under section 251(2) of the Act. The Appellants therefore submit that the enhancement of Rs. 19,29,380 is bad in law and should be deleted. Ground

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 69A

cash applied towards purchase of unregistered land Dhokawade, Alibaug, without providing a show cause notice or a reasonable opportunity of being heard under section 251(2) of the Act. The Appellants therefore submit that the enhancement of Rs. 3,16,292 is bad in law and should be deleted Ground ... applied towards purchase of unregistered land at Dhokawade, Alibaug, without providing a show cause notice or a reasonable opportunity of being heard under section 251(2) of the Act. The Appellants therefore submit that the enhancement of Rs. 19,29,380 is bad in law and should be deleted. Ground

M/S Vivek Construciton, Balco Nagar vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 67/RPR/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of 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

Vivek Construction, Balco Korba vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 66/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 66 & 67/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2023-24) Vivek Construction, C-17, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Housing Board Colony Balco Nagar, Tax, Circle-1(1), Ayakar Bhawan, Korba, Chhattisgarh, 495684. Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Cg - 495001 Pan: Aaffv3390P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed)For Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of 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

V Y Institute of Medical Science Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 480/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance

Mrigesh Gaurav, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7988/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)(ii)

adjudication of issues beyond the scope of proceedings arising from intimation under section 143(1), alleged enhancement of income without issuing notice under section 251(2), and the finding that salary earned for services rendered outside India is taxable in India without considering the provisions of section ... permissible as per Section 251(1) read with Section 246A(1) of the Act and also without issuing the mandatory notice under section 251(2) of the Act. Ground No. 5: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in treating

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

PAGE-2 :-2-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 The present batch of appeals comprises ITA Nos.991 to 993/Chny/2025

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस

Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT(A), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस

ACIT, Chennai vs. Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि

ACIT, Chennai vs. Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 1639/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि