← All Phrases

“Section 250(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 250Section 250(5)35 judgments

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

ITA 947/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) (Virtual) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

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

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,‘ए’न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएसएसधिश्वनेत्ररधि, न्याधयकसदस्यएिंश्रीएस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष BEFORE SHRI

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

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

ITA 827/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

moreover, no prayer was made by assessee with regard to exercise of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) under section 250 (4) read with section 250(5), appellate authorities were justified in confirming said addition." In the present case also, assessee did not file any application before Commissioner (Appeals) to adduce additional ... regard to SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA exercise of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) under section 250 (4) read with section 250(5). On these facts, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified and confirmed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

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

ITA 826/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

moreover, no prayer was made by assessee with regard to exercise of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) under section 250 (4) read with section 250(5), appellate authorities were justified in confirming said addition." In the present case also, assessee did not file any application before Commissioner (Appeals) to adduce additional ... regard to SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA exercise of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) under section 250 (4) read with section 250(5). On these facts, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified and confirmed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

LAKSAR CO OPERATIVE CANE DEV. UNION LTD.,LAKSAR vs. ITO, W- 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, ROORKEE

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

ITA 121/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH ‘DB’: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

FIVE STAR IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(2), JPR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 20/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfive Star Impex, F-939, Road No. 14R, Vki Area, Jaipur 302021 Pan No.:Aabff2606A ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S. B. Natani, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145Section 250Section 250(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 68

That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) having admitted the additional grounds under section 250(5) was not justified to set aside the case specifically on the basis of additional grounds as the issues covered in the additional grounds were purely ... position becomes vaguer in the light of facts, that the Ld. CIT (A) admitted the same as per the provisions of section 250(5) of the Act and after that setting aside the matter for de-novo assessment without pointing out any deficiency in the process of remand report received

CAPCO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on\nthe legal issue raised in ground number 2(d)

ITA 44/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
Section 249(2)Section 271FSection 69

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nAND

VINAYKUMAR RAM KAMAL PANDEY,BHARUCH GUJARAT vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1482/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Krutarth Desai, ARFor Respondent: \nShri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250(5)Section 89(1)

erred in not allowing the admissible amount\nof relief under the Section 89(1) on the taxed amount exceeding Rs.300000/-.\n6. Section 250(5) Addition alteration of ground of appeal, your appellant craves leave\nto add amend alter any ground of appeal.\n2. The solitary issue arising in the present

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA, C.R. BUILDING, PATNA vs. DEEPSHREE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., SAGUNA KHAGAUL DANAPUR PATNA

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

ITA 239/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69C

merits. At this stage, it deserves to be mentioned that the assessee moved for admission of the additional ground on the basis of section 250(5) of the Act and also relied on the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC). Since this case ... Corporation Ltd. case (supra) reveals that it is specifically on the powers of ITAT u/s 254 of the Act. A conjoined reading of section 250(5) and 254 of the Act reveals that while section 254 of the Act is general in terms of orders of Appellate Tribunal, section 250

ANJAIAH MUNIGELA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NIZAMBAD

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

ITA 1210/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2012-13 Anjaiah Munigela, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, C/O. P. Murali & Co., Nizamabad. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda – 500082, Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan : Abtpm9226G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri U Mini Chandran, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri U Mini Chandran, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(5)Section 37(1)Section 43B

continuation of the assessment procedures and therefore that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the additional evidence raised in exercise of section 250(5). 3 ITA 1210/Hyd/2024 14. The CIT(A) ought to considered the additional evidence, it is upto the Ld CIT(A) either to allow the said

ST. JUDE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 964/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.964/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) St. Jude Medical India Vs. Dy. C.I.T Private Limited Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics9821J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Madhur Agarwal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 250(5)

reply filed by the assessee. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned

METALEX AGENCIES,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CIRCLE-II, ERNAKULAM

ITA 817/COCH/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 250(5)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

{"clean_text": "ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023\nM/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore\nITA No.844/Bang/2023\nM/s. Paul Plathotathil John\nITA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MS. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 1012/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

{"clean_text": "ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023\nM/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore\nITA No.844/Bang/2023\nM/s. Paul Plathotathil John\nITA

VISWAMANAVA SAMAIKYATA SAMSAT,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2014-15) M/S. Viswamanava Samikyata Vs. Income Tax Officer Samsat, Guntur. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaatv 1597 P Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

assessee filed an additional ground along with the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) as per the provisions of section 250(5) of the Act admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High

ANANTA PROCON PRIVATE LIMITED,UNJHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE PATAN, PATAN

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

ITA 349/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.349/Ahd/2022 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.870/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Ananta Procon Private Limited, The A.C.I.T, C-146, Gunj Bazar, Vs. Circle Patan, Unjha-384170, Patan. Gujarat

For Appellant: Shri M.K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 250(5)Section 80Section 80I

Bench. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section 250(5) of the Act empower the ld. CIT-(Appeal) to admit any ground of appeal not specified in the memo of appeal if he is satisfied

LIFE CARE MEDICAL COMPLEX PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. CPC,BENGALURU & NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250(5)

return and not even a subject of original intimation u/s.143(1) or impugned rectification order u/s.154 under challenge, cannot be admitted under Section 250(5) of the Act. 5.17. It is a trite law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chandra Kishore

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VKI, JAIPUR

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

ITA 561/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

requested to admit the additional ground of appeal during the course of hearing. In this regard as per the provision contained in section 250(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Commissioner (Appeal) is satisfied that the omission of that ground from the form of appeal

DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, V K I JAIPUR

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

ITA 560/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

requested to admit the additional ground of appeal during the course of hearing. In this regard as per the provision contained in section 250(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Commissioner (Appeal) is satisfied that the omission of that ground from the form of appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. VALENCIA CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 257/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Valencia Corporation, Central Circle-4, S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu-Rundh Vs. Surat. Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 17/Srt/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 257/Srt/2022)(Ay: 2016-17) M/S Valencia Corporation, A.C.I.T. S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu- Central Circle-4, Vs. Rundh Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Surat. Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant/Objector Respondednt

Section 250(4)Section 250(5)Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

facts of the case and evidences produce before it, in consideration of rule 46A and powers envisage in section 250(4) and section 250(5) of the I. T. Act, upon CIT(A), after providing sufficient opportunity to AO for perusal of additional evidences furnished by the assessee during ... only fetters rights of assessee to produce additional evidence but it does not restrain Commissioner (Appeals) power under section 250(4) or section 250(5). 4. In addition and alternative to cross objection No. 1, 2, & 3, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2