← 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)

The Farrukhabad District Cooperative Bank, Farrukhabad vs. Addl. C.I.T., Range-2, Farrukhabad

In the result, ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is

ITA 138/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Sunil Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 390/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250Section 251(2)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

detailed written submissions as per para No. 11.2 of the Ld. CIT(A) order. During the course of appellate proceedings, enhancement as per section 251(2) of the Act was also made by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC for Rs. 1,31,00,000/- under Section

Balu Vithal Pawale, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 2869/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 144BSection 147rSection 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

Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Centre Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Village Mansoorwal, Tehsil Zira Head Office, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 48/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Tehsil Zira, Faridkot -151203, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 463/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Quila Chowk

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 193/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Sundaram Subramanian Rep. by Legal Heir S Sundaram, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2420/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

charging provision from Section 68 to Section 69A without providing specific opportunity of being heard on this new ground, in violation of Section 251(2) of the Act and the principles of natural justice. :-4-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 ii. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition despite ... true that the appellate authority has wide and coterminous powers with that of the Assessing Officer, such powers are not unbridled. Section 251(2) mandates that no enhancement or modification prejudicial to the assessee shall be made without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the present case

Sundaram Subramanian, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

charging provision from Section 68 to Section 69A without providing specific opportunity of being heard on this new ground, in violation of Section 251(2) of the Act and the principles of natural justice. :-4-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 ii. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition despite ... true that the appellate authority has wide and coterminous powers with that of the Assessing Officer, such powers are not unbridled. Section 251(2) mandates that no enhancement or modification prejudicial to the assessee shall be made without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the present case

Jagram Tegiram Yadav, Mumbai vs. Ward 41.1.2, Mumbai

ITA 7149/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

aranr atiieta aftpeor ara tie Hag FI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH

Sanjay Narendra Bansal, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7123/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH

Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1260/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Sangeeta Motilal Shahani, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3)(1), Vashi Navi Mumbai

ITA 7078/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asnkit Tiwari, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

# आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Ɋाय पीठ मुंबई मŐ। ### IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI ## BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH

Sharda Devi Singh, Raipur vs. ITO, Mahasamund

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 632/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 632/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sharda Devi Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, W/O Shri Shailendra Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, K-8, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, Mahasamund- 493445, Raipur-492001, C.G. C.G. Pan: Clzps1287D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 69

determination arisen for his/her consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her ... read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Bombay), wherein it has been held as under :- “Section 251(1)(a) and (b), along with the explanation in Section 251(2) of the Act, mandates that the CIT(A) must apply their mind to all issues arising 7 from the order being appealed, regardless of whether the appellant specifically

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

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 Kubera Dal & Besan Millsz, Pune vs. CIT Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1966/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1966/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Kubera Dal & Besan V Dy.Cit, Millsz, S Circle-5, Pune. 21 To 24, Marketyard, Gultekadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aakfk3139J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Advocate Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake – (On Rotation Duty) Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 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] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 24.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

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

Madan Namdev Kamthe, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2410/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Madan Namdev Kamthe, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.43, S.No.22, Kojagiri S Ward-5(2), Pune. Sahakari Gruhrachana Society, Balajinagar, Dhankawadi, Pune – 411043. Pan: Asvpk9249G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2025 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] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 04.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 251Section 251(2)Section 271D

sale of rural agricultural land. It is also noted that ld.CIT(A) had not mentioned in the order issue of any notice under section 251(2) of the Act, for any enhancement. In the order, ld.CIT(A) has not referred to Section 251 at all. Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

case the Learned JCIT(Appeals) failed to provide proper and effective opportunity of being heard prior to enhancement as mandated under section 251(2); no cogent reasons have been recorded as required under section 250(6). The enhancement, therefore, deserves to be struck down on this ground alone. 11. Because

Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Anantnag vs. ITO, Anantnag

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

ITA 274/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C. A
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251(2)

rival counsels and we find that the Ld CIT ( A ) has taken recourse to enhancement vide notice issued as per provisions of section 251(2) of the Act 61 for both the years due to reasons contained in the respective SCN , to which proper explanation with supporting documentary evidences