← 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)

Jagannath Tryambakrao Vyavahare, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1436/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1436/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jaganath Tryambakrao The Income Tax Vyavahare, V Officer, Ward-2(1), Sambhaji Chowk, Niphad, S Nashik. Nashik, Maharashtra – 422303. Pan: Aigpv5925R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2024 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 09.08.2023 For A.Y.2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal & Upholding The Order Of Ld Ao Without Serving Notice Of Hearing On The Registered Address Of The Appellant.

Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 282

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

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1288/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

income tax computation. Further, the aforesaid disallowances have been done without issuing any notice for Enhancement thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice. Section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act clearly states that the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) [, as the case may be,] shall not enhance

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1287/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

income tax computation. Further, the aforesaid disallowances have been done without issuing any notice for Enhancement thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice. Section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act clearly states that the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) [, as the case may be,] shall not enhance

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad vs. Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad

ITA 1265/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

income tax computation. Further, the aforesaid disallowances have been done without issuing any notice for Enhancement thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice. Section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act clearly states that the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) [, as the case may be,] shall not enhance

Pudhari Publications Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 12/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)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

Pudhari Publications Private Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 11/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)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

Pudhari Publications Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 10/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)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

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 905/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 148

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

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 904/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 148

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

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 893/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.893/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of Rs.82,093/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law. Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271

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

Mr Sunil Shankar Bandal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward.2(5), Pune

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr.Sunil Shankar Bandal, The Income Tax Officer, At Post Bavdhan Bk, Taluka V Ward-2(5), Pune. Mulshi, Pune – 411021. S Pan: Ajkpb8627M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.08.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Time Barred Since The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Is Served After 6 Years. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Quashed & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect. Mr. Sunil Shankar Bandal [A]

Section 129Section 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

Manoj Mahadevappa Menkundale, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 1426/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1426/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manoj Mahadevappa The Income Tax Officer, Menkudale, V Ward-1, Latur. Menkudale Niwas, Pachamma S Galli, Azad Chowk, Latur – 413512. Pan: Bkspm2680R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024

Section 144Section 246ASection 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

Give Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the primary matter involved in all the Assessment

ITA 795/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 234BSection 25Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 8

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mandeep Singh Anand, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 3070/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 17(2)Section 215Section 69C

from unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act to perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act, thereby violating the requirements of provisions of section 251(2) of Act. Hence, in any case, the addition made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are on different count

Mandeep Singh Anand, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 3069/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 17(2)Section 215Section 69C

from unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act to perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act, thereby violating the requirements of provisions of section 251(2) of Act. Hence, in any case, the addition made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are on different count

M/S G F Brother Exim Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 895/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 895/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M /S. G F Brothers Exim Private The Deputy Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, Old No.7, New No.16, Central Circle 1(4) Vellaiyan Road, Chennai. Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aaccg 0648P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 251Section 251(2)

withdrawing all the grounds except ground no.2, which reads as under:- ‘’2. The CIT(Appeals) -16, Chennai erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 251(2) of the Act to enhance the taxable total income and consequently erred in adding back a sum of Rs.6,54,60,000/- being

Ritesh Gandhare, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chandrapur

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

ITA 247/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.247/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ritesh Gandhare, The Income Tax Officer, 01, Near Central Excise, Datala V Ward-2, Chandrapur. Road, Opp.Agresan Bhawan, S Jagannath Baba Nagar, Chandrapur – 442402. Maharashtra Pan: Ahjpg2827M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ar Revenue By Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan– Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 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 H.B. Leasing & Finance Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5089/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

M/S. H.B. Leasing & Finance Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2323/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshand, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1051/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 14ASection 251(2)

erred on facts and in law in making aforesaid enhancement without providing any opportunity to the assessee in gross violation of section 251(2) of the Act and principles of natural justice. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not admitting/ allowing certain additional grounds ... that the ld. CIT(A) before resorting to enhance the income of the assessee had not issued mandatory enhancement notice in terms of Section 251(2) of the Act and hence enhancement of sum of Rs.2,84,000/- would have no legs to stand. 8. We have gone through