← 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)

M/S. Slk Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 932/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 14A

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

Sri Ram Constructions, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

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

ITA 353/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 43C

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

John Deere India Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. CIT(A), Dehi

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

ITA 2477/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2477/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., V The Commissioner Of Tower 14, Cyber City, S Income Tax(Appeals), Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Nfac, Delhi. Pune – 411013. Pan: Aaacj4233B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By 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.2014-15; Dated 27.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Using Same Statement Of Facts & Findings For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 Whereas The Statement Of Facts & Findings Are Not Relevant At All For Assessment Year 2014-15. Ita No.2477/Pun/2024 [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 244ASection 246ASection 250Section 90

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

Navneet Kumar Sancheti, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 495/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2013-14 Navneet Kumar Sancheti Nfac Prop. M/S Navnet Kumar Delhi बनाम/ Sancheti, Krishi Upaj Vs. Mandi Ashta (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acnps5570J Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

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 all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether

Adidarshan Tradewing Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1716/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 263Section 68

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

Laxmi Narayan Packaging Industries, Guwahati vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Guwahati

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

ITA 60/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 80

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

Mustafa Katthawala, Kota vs. DCIT ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

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 all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether

Ranchi Fuels, Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 532/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.532/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ranchi Fuels Limtara, Nandghat, Baloda Bazar-492 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aatfr0836L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

Vijay Krishna Bhandari, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 526/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vijay Krishna Bhandari Mata Chowra Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G)-495 001 Pan: Akxpb0382P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 45Section 45(1)Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

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

Suryadeo Prasad, Siwan vs. ITO Ward-2 (3), Siwan

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

ITA 82/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 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

Archana, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (1), Patna

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

ITA 338/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 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

Manik Pal, North 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1968/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 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

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3, Jaipur, Jpr

In the result, Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is also allowed and order declared to be bad in law, as the same violated the Principle of Natural Justice

ITA 420/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyaldinesh Kumar Chaurasia, M/S. Mahendra Gargieya & Associates, 537-539, Gargieya’S 5Th Floor, Mahima Trinity, Near Jyoti Rao Phule College, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302 019. Pan No.: Abapc 0810D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur – 302 005. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

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

Siddharth Pandarinath Bhadale, Pune vs. ITO, Pne-W-(58)(91), Pune

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1465/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)

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

Right Channel Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2613/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2016-17 Right Channel Constructions Acit, Circle-13(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 101, 1St Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Kailash Ramkripa Chs, Aayakar Bhavan, Kailashpuri Road, M.K.Road, Upper Govind Nagar, Mumbai. Malad East, Mumbai Pan : Aaecr2174D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-11-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 68

refund unless the appellant has 5 had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction.” The requirements and effect of Section 251(2) of the Act were examined by the Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Naresh Sunderlal Chug vs. ITO (2018)(93 taxmann.com ... opportunity to the assessee or without issuing show cause notice of enhancement to it. Since it is in violation of provisions of Section 251(2) of the Act, the enhancement of the addition made by the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete the enhancement made the First Appellate

Lotus Multy Speciality Hospital, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2258/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2257 & 2258/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Lotus Multy Specialty Hospital, V The Income Tax Officer, Shewalewadi Phata, Pune S Ward-14(5), Pune. Solapur Road, Manjari, Pune – 412307. Pan: Aaffl6270J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ca/Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2018-19; Dated 15.02.2024 & 04.07.2024 Respectively, Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order. We Will Take The A.Y.2016-17 As A Lead Case.

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

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

Lotus Multy Speciality Hospital, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2257/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2257 & 2258/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Lotus Multy Specialty Hospital, V The Income Tax Officer, Shewalewadi Phata, Pune S Ward-14(5), Pune. Solapur Road, Manjari, Pune – 412307. Pan: Aaffl6270J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ca/Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2018-19; Dated 15.02.2024 & 04.07.2024 Respectively, Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order. We Will Take The A.Y.2016-17 As A Lead Case.

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

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

Shri Venkatesh Nisarg Sahakari Gruhrachna Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ACIT Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 2174/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2174/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Venkatesh Nisarg Sahakari V The Acit, Gruhrachna Sanstha Maryadit, S Ward-9(1), Pune. S.No.56/3/1, Vadagaon Bk, Near Hotel Ashirvad, Haveli, Pune – 411041. Pan: Aaras2349J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 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(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 30.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Bangaluru Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Society Thereby Confirming The Computation Of Total Income Made In The Intimation U/S. 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 12/07/2019 Issued By The Dcit, Cpc Bangaluru Assessing The Total Income In The Case Of The Appellant At Rs.10,04,160/- Ignoring & Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case Appellant Housing Society That The Appellant Is A Mutual Society Created By The Members & The Source Of Its Income Was From The Members Only & Therefore Its Income Was Qualified For Exemption Under The Act On Concept Of Mutuality As A Mutual Concern. The Appellate Order Passed By The Appellate Authority Be Quashed & The Assessing Officer Be Directed To Re-Compute The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. Nil Treating The Appellant As A Mutual Society.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh