← All Phrases

“Section 250(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 250Section 250(1)73 judgments

SALAHUDDIN ABDUL RAHIM KHAN,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(3)(1), MATRU MANDIR

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

ITA 7627/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsalahuddin Abdul Rahim Vs. Ito – Ward 19(3)(1) Khan Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor B Block Flat No. 402 4Th F Matru Mandir, West Garden View, Mumbai - 400008 Mumbai - 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aadpk7525R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(1)

reason for delay was explicitly stated in Form 35 and on record of the Department 3 The learned CIT(A), NFAC violated Section 250(1) and 250(6) of the Act by failing to issue any notice or provide an opportunity to explain the alleged delay before dismissing the appeal

MANOHAR SINGH,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/ADIC, CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 726/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemanohar Singh Acit/Dcit, Circle, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Barmer 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Biqps 5344 J Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal By Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 19.07.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Impugned Order Passed In Gross Violation Of Natural Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 250Section 250(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

RAJESHWARI MADDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 72/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.72/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Rajeshwari Maddi The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 020. Ward-4(2), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 004. Pan Ctipm9854K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri V Ganesh Bhujangarao Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri V Ganesh BhujangaraoFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 144

1 ITA.No.72/Hyd./2025 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC-B

MUKUL KUMAR YADAV,GURGAON vs. CIT APPEALS, NFAC

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

ITA 6275/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 68

Mukul Kumar Yadav vs CIT(A) appellant a proper and fair opportunity of being heard, as mandated under Section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite multiple requests for adjournments due to genuine reasons, the CIT(A) proceeded to uphold the additions without adequately considering the submissions

RIVET HEALTH CLUB PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(2), FARIDABAD

ITA 6182/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

deleted as it was based on a wrong amount.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(3)", "Section 68", "Section 56(2)(viib)", "Rule 11UA", "Section 250(1)", "Section 37" ], "issues": "1. Whether the addition made under Section 68 on account of unexplained share premium and share capital is justified. 2. Whether

SAMUDRA COMMOTRADE (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. A.O, NFAC , NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 1057/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

Varanasi is sustainable in the eyes of law, keeping in view that the said appellate order was passed in violation of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the 1961 Act as well in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962? 7. Whether on facts and circumstances ... this appeal more so when the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is suffering from incurable defect of being in violation of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the 1961 Act as well in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, or not ? (A.1.1

RAJ KUMAR SINGH ,PATNA vs. ITO,WARD-6(4),PATNA , PATNA

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

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

RAJIB DUTTA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 62(4),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2078/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

SMT. SNEHA BRAHMA, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHYAMAL KUMAR BRAHMA,RAIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), , RAIGANJ

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

ITA 1085/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 69A

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

SHANKAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

ITA 159/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from

ALOK KUMAR,MADHEPURA vs. ITO WARD 3(5), SAHARSA

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

ITA 467/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraalok Kumar, Ito Ward-3(5), S/O Sri Dasrath Mehata, Saharsha Village- Ganeshpur, M.S. Vs Yogiraj, Purani Madhepura, Dist- Madhepura – 852116 (Bihar) (Pan: Bpkpk1186D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : K.P. Jalan, Ar Respondent By : Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 14.05.2024. 2 Alok Kumar, Ay: 2012-13 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: K.P. Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 292BSection 54F

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

KRIPA SHANKER,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), PATNA

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

ITA 117/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from

REDI PORT LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 4466/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2023-24
For Appellant: \nMs. Vinita Nara,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250(1)Section 270A

That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not granting an opportunity of hearing\nbefore dismissing the appeal, in contravention of Section 250(1) of the Act\nand the principles of natural justice.\n3. Facts of the case are that the ld.Assessing Officer passed the\nassessment order

PRATHIBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1424/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2017-2018 Prathiba Educational The Income Tax Officer, Society, Hyderabad. Ward-6(4), Pin – 500 038 Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aaatp4036B. Pin – 500 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By : Ca Sanket Milind Joshi राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

after availing of sufficient time and adequate number of opportunities of being heard provided to the appellant in terms of the provisions of section 250(1) of the Act, the appellant chose not to file any written submissions in support of its grounds of appeal. 7.0. DECISION : 7.1. I have

SARANG DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1230/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 68

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

SKYLINK CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CR BUILDING NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3410/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Skylink Construction Vs. Dcit Private Limited, B-42, Cr Building, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi Pan No.Aalcs1929E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 44A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH

PRAKASH GUPTA,GOPALGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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

ITA 206/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does I.T.A. No.: 206/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Gupta. not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) after discussing the provisions of sections 250(1) and 251(1) that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4