“Section 251(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(1)929 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 251(1) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 251(1)

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.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court

278

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

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. Sardari Lal & Co.

251 ITR 864 · 2001 · High Court

240

citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot introduce a new source of income that was not considered by the Assessing Officer; taxability of new sources should be addressed through reassessment provisions like Section 147/148 or revision under Section 263.

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.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court

186

citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

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.

Judgments citing Section 251(1)

Shri Nityanand Pandey, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... I.T.A. No.: 2067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nityanand Pandey. 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

Nalini Mahendra Thacker, Mumbai vs. ITO- 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4881/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

No.2336 of 2013 dated 25.04.2016 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom.) 614, wherein it has been held as under: “That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply hi- mind to all the issues

Asha Himmat Bhadra, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4764/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra, Dcit – Circle 32(1) 401 Beach Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, Balraj Sahani Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Novotel Hotel, Vs. Bandra (East) Juhu, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai Maharashtra– 400 051 Maharashtra – 400 049 Pan: Aabpb7076J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Though In The Instant Case, Both The Parties Have Filed Adjournment Applications, However, This Court Observes That The Impugned Order Is An Ex-Parte & Therefore It Would Be Appropriate To Dismiss The Adjournment Requests & To Proceed With The Case To Decide The Same. Thus, The Adjournments Requests Are Declined & Case Is Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

No.2336 of 2013 dated 25.04.2016 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom.) 614, wherein it has been held under: “That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply hi- mind to all the issues, which

Ninad Arun Diwakar, Nashik vs. ITO, ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1318/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 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], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 54F(4)

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-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

Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari Chalamcharla, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1269/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1268 & 1269/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari V The Income Tax Officer, Chalamcharla, S. Ward-2, Panvel. F-203, Goodwill Garden Chs, Plot No.16/17, Sector 8, Kharghar, Maharashtra-410210 Pan: Atupc8616P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Respectively For A.Y.2022-23, Both Dated 21.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 14.03.2024 & Penalty Appeal Dated 13.09.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-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

Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari Chalamcharla, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1268/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-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

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Fatehabad, Fatehabad vs. Rakesh Nagpal, Fatehabad

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

ITA 60/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Shri Rakesh Nagpal, Ward – 1, Vs House No. 39A, Model Town, Fatehabad. Fatehabad. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalpn1386K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 270A(2)

preliminary grievance is that ld. First Appellate Authority has set aside the assessment order by exercising the powers contemplated in provision of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The ld. Sr.DR submitted that in this case, assessment order has not been passed ex-parte or according to the best ... have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, which reads as under : “Powers of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) 251.(1) In disposing

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Fatehabad, Fatehabad vs. Rakesh Nagpal, Fatehabad

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

ITA 59/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 270A(2)

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Rajesh Gupta Prop. M/S Shri Balaji Trading Co., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 459/CHANDI/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 144Section 251(1)

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. We take note of the relevant part of Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under : Powers of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) 251.(1) In disposing

Qlar India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1134/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Qlar India Private Limited The Dcit, Circle 11(1) No.3, Old No.18& 23, 3 Rd Main Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 1St Phase, Peenya Chowringhee Square, Vs. Industrial Area, Bengaluru, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Karnataka-560058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs4728C Assessee By : Shri K.M Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri K.M Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)

aside the issue of disallowance of provision for warranty to the file of the Ld. AO is erroneous and in gross violation of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 4.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated herein

Jiten Kishore Ajmera (Legal Heir of Late Shri Kishore H. Ajmera), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4843/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Jiten Kishore Ajmera Ito Ward 25(1)(1), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Kautilya Bhavan, Kishore H. Ajmera), Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, Bandra (East), Lt Marg, Pathakwadi, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Agppa2452B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prashant Ghumare, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, Despite Of Affording Various Opportunities In The Appellate Proceedings Initiated Against The Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Whereby The Assessing Officer (Ao) Made The Addition Of Rs.22,34,538/- Being Unexplained Investment In Jewellery, The Assessee Made No Compliance And/Or Filed No Submissions/Documents. Therefore, The Assessee Is Not Entitled For Any Leniency.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Premkumar Arjundas (HUF) in ITA No.2336 of 2013 dated 25.04.2026 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom) 614 , as under: “That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Abir Knits Pvt. Ltd., Focal Point

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 496/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 271A

Therefore, I set aside the impugned assessment order to the file of AO for making a fresh assessment by invoking amended provisions of Section 251(1)(a) which are reproduced as below: 251 (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) shall have the following powers ... submissions could be properly examined by the Assessing Officer. In doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly invoked the amended proviso to section 251(1)(a), which specifically empowers the first appellate authority, in cases arising out of best judgment assessments under section 144, to set aside such assessment

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

shall have the powers as enumerated in clauses (a), (aa), (b), (c). In so far as the case on hand, clause (a) of section 251(1) of the Act should be relevant, which states in an appeal against the order of assessment the Commissioner (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance ... learned Tribunal, the assessee had specifically raised the ground that the CIT(A) exceeded the limits of powers statutorily bestowed as per Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and grossly erred in law in restoring the case to the assessing officer for action in terms of the order dated

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

Potu Janardhan Rao, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1072/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Accordingly, the CIT(A), in the backdrop of the powers vested with him as per the newly inserted “Proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to frame a de novo assessment, after taking into account ... file of the AO for de novo assessment in the backdrop of the powers vested with him under the “Proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act as has been made available in the statute w.e.f.01.10.2024. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that as the adjudication

Income Tax Officer, Infinity Towers, Sankarmatham Road vs. Ammaji Chennupati, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 441/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

Mr. Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1803/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1803/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, V The Income Tax Officer, Ayodhya Nagar, S Ward-2(1), Jalgaon. Varangaon-425307. Pan: Acwpj1153H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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 A.Y.2017-18 Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Ao & Confirmed By The Id. Cit(A). Nfac, Is Bad & Void Ab Initio & Also Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 144Section 250

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-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

Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, Satana vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1322/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, V The Income Tax Officer, Dongrej Virgaon, Satana, S Ward-1, Malegaon. Dist-Nashik, Nashik – 423301. Pan: Anmpk4805E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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 A.Y.2012-13 Dated 24.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 22,94,000/-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-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

Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1257/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1257/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pathsanstha Limited, S Ward-1, Kolhapur. 2832B Ward Yamula Devalaya Najik Karveer, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaqas6598A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.11.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-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

Jai Matadi Enterprise, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non- 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