← 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)

Ykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Signature Tower – A, Circle – 4(1) 14Th Floor, South City New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana Pan No. Aaacy 0460 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajkumar, C.A. Shri J. P. Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.1020/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Gurgaon In Appeal No. 314/17-18 Dated 20.11.2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 14.12.2017 By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). 2

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)

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

Surya Diam, Gujarat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR
Section 251(2)

addition to substantive addition without raising any show cause notice or opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is in violation of section 251(2) of the Act and principles of natural justice. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. Navkar India, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya
Section 147Section 251(2)

addition to substantive addition without raising any show cause notice or opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, which is in violation of section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Nikhil Inderchand Jain, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Nagpur

ITA 121/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3)Section 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

Vinod Sabhapati Pandey, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Nagpur

ITA 111/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vinod Sabhapati Pandet, The Income Tax Officer, C/O. Chadda Transport, Ward V Ward-4, Chandrapur. No.05, Manikgarh Cement S Rd, Bakhardi, Gadhchandur, Chandrapur – 442908. Pan: Bgppp8723F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Agrawal – Adv.(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2024 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], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, For A.Y.2013-14 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S Vinod Sabhapati Pandet [A]

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44A

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

Apeak Infotech Private Liminted, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

ITA 103/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.103/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Apeak Infotech Private The Assistant Limited, V Commissioner Of Income Room No.3, Ground Floor, S Tax, Plot No.101, East High Court Circle-4, Nagpur. Road, New Ramdas Peth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aafca5453R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Hitesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2024 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], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, For A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S Apeak Infotech Private Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 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

Pahari Mata Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT Reang-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 19/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pahari Mata Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. V. The Assistant 761, Village – Anaura Commissioner Of Near Indira Canal Income Tax Faizabad Road, Lucknow Range-I, Lucknow Pan:Aabap6918L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 04 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 04 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, DR
Section 43C

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 ... amounts to non-application of mind. This non-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) Page 7 of 8 provides that while disposing of an appeal against assessment order, Commissioner (Appeals) shall

Tushar Rampal Sahu, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Nagpur

ITA 124/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.124/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tushar Rampal Sahu, The Income Tax Officer, 69, Near Pritam Complex, V Ward-4(3), Nagpur. Bhandara Road, Small S Factory Area, Bagadganj, Nagpur – 440008. Pan: Blvps8054B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani. Advocate(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 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], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, For A.Y.2014-15 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Tushar Rampal Sahu [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

The Institute of India Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1230/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1229/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1228/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., Nagpur vs. Director of Income Tax, Nagpur

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

ITA 56/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., The Director Of Income C-108, Hingna Road, Midc V Tax, Industrial Area, Hingna, S Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, 3Rd Floor, Nagpur – 440028. Pan: Aaacb5340H Room No.301, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh Loya – Ca-Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Passed U/S250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Fa Of The Act Dated 27.09.2019 Passed By Director Of Income Tax(Intelligence & Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., [A]

Section 2Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 285Section 285B

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

Sun Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 251(2)

cannot make any enhancement on the issue which does not arise out of the order of the assessment. Accordingly, section 251(2) of the Act that the impugned enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with law as the enhancement is not arising out of assessment

Lokmangal Cooperative Bank Limited, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 1091/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotelokmangal Cooperative Bank Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Ltd., 128, Murarji Peth, Solapur. Opp. Sevasdan High School, Solapur-413001 (Mh) Pan: Aaaal 0119 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde,Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 12.09.2023 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde,DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „A‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. DIPAK P

M/S. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

ITA 45/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 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)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

Section 14Section 153ASection 154Section 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

Namdeo Indarrao Gore, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 Pune, Pune

ITA 1397/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1397/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Namdeo Indarrao Gore, The Dy.Commissioner Of Subhadra Cme Engineers, V Income Tax, Plot No.1, Subhadra House, S Circle-5, Pune. Nanded Phata, Maharashtra – 411041. Pan: Aavpg0671L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Ar Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2024 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 26.10.2023. The Assessee For A.Y.2015-16 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Ao Erred In Making & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.30,71,906/- U/S 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act On Account Of Unpaid Sundry Creditors. Namdeo Indarrao Gore [A]

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

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

Govind Milk and Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Phaltan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Satara

ITA 848/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.848/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Govind Milk & Milk Products The Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., V Officer, Ward-3, Ganesh Sheri, Pune Pandharpur S Satara. Road, At Post Kolki, Phaltan, Satara, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacg7588A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 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 25.05.2023. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Passing Her Order Ex-Parte Without Allowing Appellant Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.43,51,377/- Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Made By The Ld Ao Without Govind Milk & Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 40

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

Chandarani N.Goyal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3661/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(2)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

first issue raised by the assessee pertains to the enhancement of assessment by the learned CIT(A) in contravention of the provisions of section 251(2) of the Act. In the next ground, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.25 lakh made by the learned CIT(A) under section ... aforesaid addition under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) did not comply with the provisions of section 251(2) of the Act and did not grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee of showing causes against the aforesaid enhancement. 8. Section 251

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6 (Now CC-1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

proceeded to enhance the levy of penalty also from 100% to 200% for which enhancement notice in terms of section 251(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. This is a case wherein, the original addition made u/s 68 of the Act by the ld AO got deleted