← 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)

Medical Pollution Control Committee, Kanpur vs. ACIT, Central-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 77/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Medical Pollution Control V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Committee Income Tax 21E Block, Panki Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur City 208020 Kanpur Pan:Aaaac3243Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

grounds of appeal. Moreover, the perusal of section 251(1)(a) and (b) and further the perusal of Explanation of section 251(2) shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her, whether or not these ... mind. This non- ITA No.77/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 4 application of mind is a contravention of statutory role of the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 251(2) of I.T. Act. Also, section 251(1)(a) provides that while disposing of an appeal against assessment order, Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the power

Sudhir Yashwant Kadam, Ratnagiri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

ITA 767/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sudhir Yashwant Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, H.No.127, Bahutule Wadi, S Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Mavlange, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra – 415616. Pan: Abfpk2131A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 16.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ito Of Rs.13,47,713/- Representing The Total Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account, Ignoring Submission Of The Appellant That: A. The Source Of The Cash Deposit Being Out Of His Business Turnover No Addition Is Sudhir Yashwant Kadam [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and 3 Sudhir Yashwant Kadam [A] 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

Sujata Suresh Nikam, Kalamboli Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -5 Panvel, Panvel

ITA 474/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujata Suresh Nikam, V The Income Tax Officer, Kl 4/10/3, Sector 4E, S Ward-5, Panvel. Kalamboli, Maharashtra – 410218. Pan: Abspn5521A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Kadrekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 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 27.06.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) – Nfac Has Erred In Confirming Order Imposing Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Failed To Consider The Sujata Suresh Nikam [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271B

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

Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi, Parbhani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Parbhani

ITA 396/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub V The Income Tax Officer, Qureshi, S Ward, Parbhani. Khureshi Traders, Khureshi Mohala, Purna, Parbhani, Maharashtra – 431511. Pan: Bkjpk1916R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. M.N.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 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 04.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing Appellant’S Appeal Alleging ‘Unexplained Cash Deposit In The Bank Account' In Para 5.2. Appellant Prays For Allowing Assessee'S Appeal Cancelling Addition Made By Assessing Officer As Issue Before Cit[A] Is Income Assessed Estimating Profit. Shaik Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi [A]

Section 234Section 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

Santosh Krushna Ghule, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Satara

ITA 461/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.461/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Krushna Ghule, V The Income Tax Officer, 165/9, Sahu Nagar, Godolo, S Ward-5, Satara. Satara – 415001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ayopg3325J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2024 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 13.01.2023. 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 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Granting Him Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & The Impugned Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Ao Had Assessed An Amount Of Rs.53,24,743/- As Long Term Capital Gains Without Santosh Krushna Ghule [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 45Section 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

Krishna Palace Residency Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4126/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivram a/w Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule (Addl.CIT) SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251Section 251(2)Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)

addition amount of Rs.11,90,410/- U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rule. On the other sense, by applying the provisions of section 251(2) enhanced the income amount to Rs.3,00,400/- towards loan processing charges and the interest amount to Rs.54,84,478/- attributable to investment made

Synergyone Infrastructure & Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4936/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the learned AO and almost all payments were subjected to Tax Deducted at source and have been made by account payee cheques. The appellant hereby requests the addition may please be deleted."

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 37(1)

erred and is not justified in enhancing the assessment order by converting the protective addition to substantive addition without issuing notice under section 251(2) of the IT Act. The appellant hereby requests your honour to kindly quash the order as illegal, bad in law and oblige

Mukesh Lahu Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune

ITA 542/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.542/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mukesh Lalu Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 92, Anand Park, It Road S Ward-2(1), Pune. Aundh, Pune – 411007. Pan: Afepj4215K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 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 24.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Presumptive Turnover & Percentage Of Profit Respectively @ Rs.6,98,20,894/- & 8% I.E. Rs.55,85,672/-

Section 234ASection 234BSection 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

Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

ITA 526/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.526/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Accuscan Daignostic Service V The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, S Ward-1(1), Pune. 304, Rajat Apartmens, North Main Road, Lane-06, Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabca4647D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 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 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of Cit(A), Nfac Dated 19.01.2024 In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play. 2. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 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

Infotek Netalia Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Pune

ITA 1004/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 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 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Piramal Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1273/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 251Section 35ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Rajendra Damodhar Jadhav, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

ITA 717/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 139(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

Interglobe Technology Quotient Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner Circle 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 95/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 199Section 250Section 251(2)Section 80G

forming part of assessment order) and changing the complexion of the case without any prior notice/ opportunity, in gross violation of provisions of section 251(2) of the Act. 1.3. That the CIT(A) erred in not quashing the assessment order dated 22.09.2022 passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing

Sukh Darshan Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward.43(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2233/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 54F

from Rs.4096805/- to Rs 4285000/- and changing under section from 68 to 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 in contrary to provision of section 251(2) of such Act. 4. On Facts & circumstances in Law. Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4285000/- arbitrarily without appreciating facts

Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 255/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 139(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

Anil Tarachand Kadu, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Pune

ITA 1059/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1059/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tarachand Kadu, The Deputy Gut No.115, Ranjankhol, V Commissioner Of Income Tilaknagar, Ahmednagar, S Tax, Central Cirlce-1(1), Ahmednagar – 413720. Pune. Pan: Aplpk9182P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Vinita Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 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 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 07.08.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Anil Tarachand Kadu [A]

Section 143(3)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

Anil Tarachand Kadu, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Pune

ITA 1058/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1058/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tarachand Kadu, The Deputy Gut No.115, Ranjankhol, V Commissioner Of Income Tilaknagar, Ahmednagar, S Tax, Central Cirlce-1(1), Ahmednagar – 413720. Pune. Pan: Aplpk9182P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Vinita Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 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 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 07.08.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 20.06.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Ex-Parte Order, Without Anil Tarachand Kadu [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

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 Samarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ITO, Exemotion Ward, 2 Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 629/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.629/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)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

Sigmalon Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 603/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.603/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 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

Jai Shriram Sahakari Path Sansthan Mariyadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Pune

ITA 173/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.173/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jai Shriram Sahakari Pat The Income Tax Officer, Sansthan Maryadit, V Ward-6(4), Pune. 1085, Bhawani Peth, S Padmashali Puram, Kamgar Middan, Nr Watar Tank, Pune – 411042. Pan: Aacaj7371A Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 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 10.10.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming & The Ito, Ward 6(4), Pune (Learned Ao) Erred In Law & On Facts In Assessing Appellant'S Total Income At Rs.1,17,73,000/- By Making Addition Of The Same Amount U/S 69A Of The Ita, 1961. 2. Learned Cit(A) & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Addition U/S 69A Without Appreciating That Cash Deposit By The Appellant Is Not Income Of The Appellant As The Same Amount Was Collected From Msedcl Consumers On Behalf Of Msedcl & Back-To-Back Transferred To Msedcl & Jai Shriram Sahakari Path Sansthan Maryadit [A]

Section 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