← 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)

Vipra Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivmoga

ITA 1346/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member

For Appellant: Shri Vivek A.R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 251(2)Section 57Section 80Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Deepti Agrawal, New Delhi

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

ITA 224/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshdcit Vs. Deepti Agrawal Central Circle – 15 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi-110 054 Pan No. Aampa 0573 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 48/Del/2024 (In Ita No.224/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Deepti Agrawal Vs. Dcit 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, Central Circle – 15 Civil Lines, New Delhi New Delhi-110 054 Pan No. Aampa 0573 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. M

More Deshpande and Associates, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 4(5)- Pune, Pune

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 924/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.924/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 More Deshpande & Associates, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(5), 113, 114, Nana Peth, Pune-411002 Pune Pan : Aabfm9425G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.03.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Assessing Officer Was Not Justified In Making The Addition To Income As Ltcg On Sale Of Property Of Rs.2,02,94,900/- Under Section 43Ca Of The Act. More Deshpande & Associates

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

Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Jalna vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jalna

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

ITA 919/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.919/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Vs Income Tax Department, Near Market Yard, Main Road, National Faceless Assessment Tal.-Mantha, Dist.-Jalna-431504 Centre Pan : Agrpm1697A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 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, Dated 17.08.2023 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) (Nfac) Erred In Passing Appeal Order Under Sec. 250 Of The Act, Dt. 17-08-2023 Which Order Is Perverse Not Only To The Facts Of The Case & Also The Provisions Of The Act, 1961. Girish Ratanlal Murkya

Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 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

Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nashik vs. ITO (Exemption) - 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 709/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Vs The Income Tax Officer Annasaheb Vaishampayan Vidyalaya, (Exemption)-1(1), Nashik Mahatma Nagar, Satpur, Nashik-422007 Pan : Aaata8178P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 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)/Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Bengaluru Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 11.02.2024 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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

Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Office, Kudal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 701/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.701/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Vs The Income Tax Officer, S-7 Vinayak Apartment, Vaishyawada, Kudal Sawantwadi, Maharashtra-416510 Pan : Acgpb9237N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 01.03.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.1,35,52,006/- (Sundry Creditors Rs.41,42,506 & Unsecured Loans Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy

Section 115BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 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

Sundararaman Jayaraman Iyer, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1390/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1390/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 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

Rajendra Pandurang Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Pune

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

ITA 1384/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1384/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

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

M/S. Victor Commercial Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1127/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Victor Commercial Co. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Ltd., Kolkata, C/O. M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Vs Co., 7, C.R., Avenue, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Kolkata - 700072 Bypass, Kolkata - 700017 (Pan: Aabcv0011C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S. Jhajaria, ARFor Respondent: Pradip Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Liyakat Appalal Pathan, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1361/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1361/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 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 4 before

Shreenath Developers, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 909/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 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

Uday Damodar Bajaj, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani Math, Nashik vs. Officer of the Income Tax, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uday Damodar Bajaj, V The Income Tax Officer, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Math, Dhammagiri Road, Varachi Peth, Igatpuri – 422403. Pan: Ahypb2584P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 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)/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 19.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “The Appellant, Aggrieved By The Order Passed By Ld. Additional / Joint Cit(A) - 7, Kolkata U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 19.04.2024 Preferred This Uday Damodar Bajaj [A]

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270FSection 271ASection 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

Bhushan Radhakishan Chechani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-3 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1340/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1340/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Radhakrishan Chechnai, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.B-56, Sector C-N-4, S Ward-1, Jalna. Cidco, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aappc5074R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjeevkuamr B Kabra – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 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)/Jcit(A), Gwalior Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 28.02.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether The Learned Assessing Officer Is Justified In Passing The Assessment Order For The Year On The Basis Of Joint Development Agreement Without Verifying The Fact That Possession Of Plot Till Ashok Radhakishan Chechnai [A]

Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 54F

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

Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1304/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1304/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, 3 B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, S Ward-2(3), Pune. Krikee, Pune – 411003. Pan: Aaqpj2957F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C V Deshpande – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 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, Dated 31.08.2023 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Gravely Erred In Not Accepting Request Of The Appellant For Adjourning The Matter By Giving Some More Time To The Appellant & Passing The Exparty Order Within 5 Days Of Request By The Appellant Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain [A]

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

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

Punjab State Coop. Bank Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Cl-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result the impugned order of Ld

ITA 293/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 80P(2)(a)

making addition of Rs. 12087000 when the addition in the original was made by the Ld. AO. by issuing enhancement notice under Section 251(2) without adhering to the laid down procedure when the issue had been remanded the amount had accrued from the order passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati & Chandrapur Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Chandrapur

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

ITA 89/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

passed in accordance with law. 17. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that in accordance with the provisions of section 251(2) of the Act, the Revenue has no power to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Bench agreed

ACIT, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. Chandrapur Distt. Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

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

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

passed in accordance with law. 17. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that in accordance with the provisions of section 251(2) of the Act, the Revenue has no power to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Bench agreed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chandrapur District Central Co-Oprative Bank Limted, Chandrapur

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

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

passed in accordance with law. 17. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that in accordance with the provisions of section 251(2) of the Act, the Revenue has no power to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Bench agreed

Ramkrishna Cine Exhibitors, Pune vs. Pne Circle 2 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 768/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.768/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramkrishna Cine Exhibitors, Vs. The Assessing Officer, C/O. Mangala Multiplex, Circle-2, Pune 101, Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aalfr4229F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mandar S. Khire and Shri S.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 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

Rayirth Holding and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.3214/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3214/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Issued The Notice In The Wrong Email Account. The Appeal Order Is Passed Ex Parte & Upheld The Assessment Order. Being Aggrieved On The Appeal Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri AnoopHiwase, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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