← All Phrases

“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)

Ashok Narayan Satav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 3355/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3355/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Narayan Satav, V The Income Tax Near Datta Mandir, Wadjai, S Officer, Ward-12(3), Wagholi, Haveli, Pune. Pune – 412207. Pan: Aypps9425G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak S Sasar Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 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 29.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Has Wrongly Confirmed The Addition Made By

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre erroneously dismissed the Appeal without considering the newly inserted proviso to Section 251(1)(a) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. This Proviso compulsorily mandate that where Appeal is against order of Assessment made u/s. 144, such order should

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate vs. Shivai Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2536/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

still when the issue came before Id. CIT(A) who also possesses co-terminus power with that of A.O and as per section 251(1)(a) of the Act. the Id. CIT(A) in disposing the appeal against order of assessment has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul

Navnath Pitambar Pawar, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 1286/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3357/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Paresh Prashant Bhide, V Ward-12(1), Pune. Flat No.206, Ij Wing, S Meghmalhar, Dsk Vishwa, Dhayari, Pune – 411041. Pan: Bwjpb6765M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 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.2022-23 Dated 14.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 22.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Incorrect Business Income:

Section 1Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

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

M/S. Armstrong Energy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3395/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Vs. Dcit 6(1) (1), Mumbai Ltd. Room No. 504, 5Th 5Th Floor, Militia Apartment, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mathur Pakhadi Road, M.K. Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai - 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3807R (Applicant) (Respondent) Acit 6(1) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 5Th Floor, Militia Road, Apartment, Mathur Mumbai 400020 Pakhadi Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3807R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: M/S. Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

erred in setting aside the assessment order to the assessing officer for fresh assessment by applying the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The section 251(1)(a) is not applicable to the appellant as original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... section 251(1)(a) is applicable only in cases where assessment order is passed u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961. The set aside by the CIT(A) is totally bad in law 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2940/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Vs. Dcit 6(1) (1), Mumbai Ltd. Room No. 504, 5Th 5Th Floor, Militia Apartment, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mathur Pakhadi Road, M.K. Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai - 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3807R (Applicant) (Respondent) Acit 6(1) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 5Th Floor, Militia Road, Apartment, Mathur Mumbai 400020 Pakhadi Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3807R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: M/S. Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

erred in setting aside the assessment order to the assessing officer for fresh assessment by applying the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The section 251(1)(a) is not applicable to the appellant as original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... section 251(1)(a) is applicable only in cases where assessment order is passed u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961. The set aside by the CIT(A) is totally bad in law 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole, Beed vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(ix)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2

/NFAC set aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO for making fresh assessment under the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act by observing as under : “5. Decision & findings: I have gone through the assessment order dated 31.01.2024, grounds of appeal, statement of facts ... assessee and set aside the assessment order for denovo adjudication by the Ld. AO in terms of newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Before us, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings relying on the decision

Poonam Arora, Kashipur vs. Assessment Unit, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/DDN/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthistay Application No.11/Ddn/2026 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 बनाम Poonam Arora, Assessment Unit, Gram Kharmasa, Kashipur, (U.S. Nagar), Vs. It Department, Uttarakhand. Ao, Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani, Pan No.Ajmpa5746J Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.16/Ddn/2026 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 बनाम Poonam Arora, Assessment Unit, Gram Kharmasa, Kashipur, (U.S. Nagar), Vs. It Department, Uttarakhand. Ao, Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani, Pan No.Ajmpa5746J Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)

hereafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 26.11.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 2. The Ld. AR read out the provisions of section 251(1) of the Act and stated that the assessee had duly complied before the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter

Pradeep Madhukar Thombare, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 3237/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3237/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pradeep Madhukar Thombre, V The Income Tax Officer, 101, Padmini Niwas, Prashant S Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Nagar, Ambajogai – 431517. Pan: Aappt7315L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubham N Rathi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 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 ... appeal on 6 ITA No.3237/PUN/2025 [A] 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

Smita Narendra Sonawane, Nashik vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 3213/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3213/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smita Narendra Sonawane, V National Faceless Vadel, Malegaon, S Assessment Centre. Nashik – 423206 Pan: Ejtps9105Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251

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 ... appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply 4 ITA No.3213/PUN/2025 [A] 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

Jaidev Vinod Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he held appeal of the assessee as liable to be dismissed

ITA 6626/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 43CSection 50CSection 53A

order of ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal, in limine, deserves to be set-aside as warranted by proviso to section 251(1)(a). Ground 7 Denial of opportunity 4 Jaidev Vinod Kumar Gupta AY 2017-18 a) The ld. CIT (A) failed to realise that the order passed

Bhasin Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle -(4)2, New Delhi

ITA 5544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

both the learned lower authorities; be it the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) assessment framed on 30.12.2016 or the CIT(A)’s’ section 251(1)(c) enhancement herein; ought to be upheld since having rightly treated the assessee’s unsecured loans of Rs.80 lakhs and Rs.9 ... assessee thus instituted its lower appeal on 02.02.2017. The same got listed for hearing wherein the learned CIT(A) set into motion his section 251(1)(a) “enhancement” jurisdiction for adding its entire unsecured loans/cash credits amounting to Rs.9,25,00,000/- (supra). He also directed for remand proceedings/report from

Bhasin Motors Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

ITA 1699/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

both the learned lower authorities; be it the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) assessment framed on 30.12.2016 or the CIT(A)’s’ section 251(1)(c) enhancement herein; ought to be upheld since having rightly treated the assessee’s unsecured loans of Rs.80 lakhs and Rs.9 ... assessee thus instituted its lower appeal on 02.02.2017. The same got listed for hearing wherein the learned CIT(A) set into motion his section 251(1)(a) “enhancement” jurisdiction for adding its entire unsecured loans/cash credits amounting to Rs.9,25,00,000/- (supra). He also directed for remand proceedings/report from

Aftab Siddique, Raipur vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 633/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 633/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Aftab Siddique, Near Sunni Maszid, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Nayapara, Tatyapara, Raipur, Tax, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Pan: Ajgps3624K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 09/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his 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

Narottam Atmaram Warde, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 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.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)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

Income Tax Office Ward 3(3) Pune, Pune vs. Ramesh Magaramji Muleva, Pune

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

ITA 3120/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 251Section 69

novo assessment, despite the fact that the assessment order was NOT passed u/s 144. The CIT(A) had no power under Section 251(1)(a) to set aside or remand the matter after 01.06.2001. The impugned order is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zoetis India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5984/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORESHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Revenue by
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35D

remitting the same back to the file of ld. AO for fresh adjudication, despite the restriction contained in proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act which allow to exercise the power of remitting back only in cases where the assessment is made under section 144 (based judgment assessment

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. M/S Cyberwalk Tech Park Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 448/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Circle 4 (2), Vs. Cyberwalk Tech Park Pvt. Ltd., Select City Walk 6Th Floor, Delhi. A-3, District Centre Saket New Delhi – 110 017. (Pan : Aadcs8089F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. R.S. Ahuja, Ca & Sh. P.S. Sodhi, Adv Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Ahuja, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 45(2)

that the mistake was apparent on record and Ld. CIT(A) has applied the proper law, he has applied his power as per Section 251(1) of the Act. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the well reasoned order

Malkit Kaur, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer, Guraspur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 272/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.272/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: None ( Adjournment application )For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

first appellate authority set aside the assessment back to the file of the Assessing Officer as per amended provision of section 251(1)(a) of the Act for fresh assessment. 5. The Assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal against the said order ... materials on record and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly set aside the matter by invoking the provision of section 251(1)(a) of the Act for denovo assessment which means all the legal issues are left open. We are in agreement with the order

Raju Jhanghel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 446/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his 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

Raju Jhanghel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 445/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his 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