“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)

Jds Capital Markets Private Limited, Jds Chambers Raipur vs. ITO, Ward -1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 309/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.309/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jds Capital Markets Private Limited 6, Central Avenue, Choube Colony, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aabcj0428P

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Jaypee Infra Ventures Private Limited, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ACIT Circle 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3992/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 249Section 250

section 250(6) of the Act. 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

Chandrakant Vaijanathappa Khanapure, Nanded vs. ITO Ward 1 Nanded, Nanded

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

ITA 779/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.779/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chandrakant Vaijanathappa V The Income Tax Officer, Khanapure, S Ward-1, Nanded. 34 Deep Nagar, Near Bsnl Office, Nanded – 431601. Maharashtra. Pan: Aropk0786G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025

Section 142Section 144Section 250Section 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

Daurau Farm LLP, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshdaurau Farm Llp, Vs. Acit, C-96, First Floor Khirki Central Circle-Ii, Extention, South Delhi, Noida Malviya Nagar, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aapfd6458G Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

entire order of the Learned CITA, we find that there is absolutely no whisper about issuance of notice of enhancement in terms of section 251(2) of the Act by the Learned CITA for proposing the addition on account of net profit. Hence the assessee was never given an opportunity

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

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

ITA 248/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

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

ITA 247/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Designer Stone Impex, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1272/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘‘ए” बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Venkataratnam Tiriminchi, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 434/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri S. Prasad Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.D.R

Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘‘ए” बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “SM-A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Shamimullah, Vellore vs. ITO, Ncw-11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 473/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.473/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamimullah, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 56, Masuthi Street, Non Corporate Ward 11(2), Near Canara Bank, Arakkonam, Chennai. Vellore 631 001. [Pan:Dalps5068E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Gopalan, Irs (Jcit Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri G. Gopalan, IRS (JCIT Retd.)For Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 251(2)Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69A

appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued hearing notices dated 24.11.2023, 23.01.2024 & 01.03.2024 and also show cause notices under section 251(2) of the Act dated 05.04.2024 & 30.04.2024, however, there was no compliance from the assessee. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under ... under section 40A(3) of the Act shall be 100% of cash payments exceeding ₹.20,000/- after issuing various notices for enhancement under section 251(2) of the Act. 6. The ld. AR Shri G. Gopalan, IRS (JCIT Retd.) submits that non- compliance to the notices issued

Sandeep Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Balithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Tonk vs. Rjn-W-(107)(5), Tonk

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1306/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbalithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 Pan No.: Aabab4614R ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Hemang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 3(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.200/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd……………………………………...….……….Appellant Room No.1A, 20B, West Bengal, East India House, Bbd Bag, West Bengal-700069. [Pan: Aadcc6607K] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata.….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 88 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income As Nil. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 69Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Rohan Housing Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 622/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.622/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rohan Housing Private V The Deputy Limited, S. Commissioner Of Income 1-Modibaug, Commercial Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Building, Shivajinagar, Pune. Ganeshkhind Road, Near Agriculture College, Pune – 410016. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadcr6403N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl.Cit[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 06.01.2025.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 23(4)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkata vs. ACIT- CC - 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 5008/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Kashinath Tapuriah Acit-Cc-2, Mumbai 9, Rowdown Street, Udyanchal Bldg., Flat No. 20, 5Th Floor, Kolkata, Vs. Karnataka – 700017. Pan/Gir No. Abupt5665K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri. P. D. Chougule, Sr. Dr. Respondent By : 19.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 47, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2011-12. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Inspite Of Several Opportunities, We Hereby Proceed To Dispose Off This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative (‘Ld. Dr’ For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.41,345 Business Expenditure. Kashinath Tapuriah

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 19.02.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM Kashinath

Ashitkumar Ganesh Poria, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 851/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.851/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ashitkumar Ganesh Poria, V The Dy.Cit(Central), 931, Raviwar Peth, Huseni S Circle-2(1), Pune. Trust, Near Dagadi Nagoba, Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aispp7097C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri T.S.Shelke – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. During The Preceding Before Cit Appeal, The Appellant Has Requested Time For Preparation Of Submission & Explain The Disputed Issue Vide Letter Dated 28.01.2025, Acknowledgement

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

Pandurang Maruti Abhang, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Pune

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

ITA 844/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.844/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pandurang Maruti Abhang, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.203, Narayan Bag S Ward-5(4), Pune. Society, Lane No.8, Shiv Nagar, Kirkatwadi, Sinhagad Road, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Himanshu Choudhary – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.01.2025 For Assessment Year2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 251Section 251(1)(a)

Payal Sanjay Soni, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 799/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.799/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Payal Sanjay Soni, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.B12, Satyam Co-Op S Ward-6(3), Pune. Hsg Soc, Opp Gavkosh Maruti Mandir, 1452 Kasba Peth, Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bncps5773C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor – Ar (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 694Section 69A

Yogesh Durgadas Phal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Pune

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

ITA 436/PUN/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Yogesh Durgadas Phal, V The Income Tax Officer, 309/33 Gokhale Nagar, Shivaji S Ward-3(2), Pune. Nagar, Opp.Patrakar Nagar, Haweli, Pune – 411016. Maharashtra. Pan: Abjpp1640F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sailee Gujarathi – Ca Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.11.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 234ASection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 655/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE