“Section 249(4)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(4)(a)74 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 249(4)(a) is Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (124 Taxmann.com 249), cited in 105 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(4)(a)

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.

124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court

105

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

Trust (249 ITR 533) (Bom.) 3. CIT vs. Red Rose School (163 Taxman 19 (All.) 4. DIT(E) v. Alarippu (

172 ITR 698 · 1988 · High Court

citing judgments

Income received by a trust from sources like extra fees can be taxed at the maximum marginal rate, while other income remains eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

11th June, 1996. 4. In Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT

242 ITR 381 · 2000 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless the assessment proceedings based on a previously filed return have been terminated. Notice for reassessment cannot be issued while original assessment proceedings are pending.

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC)

74 ITR 836 · 1969 · Reported

citing judgments

Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co.

194 ITR 645 · 1992 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The right of appeal is conferred by statute and should be interpreted liberally and practically. Whether a right to appeal is available should be guided by the form, not the substance, of the order.

Hotel Sai Siddi (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

13 Taxmann.com 155 · 2011 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee's appeal should be admitted if they incurred a loss and were therefore not liable to pay advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b). In such cases, the appeal should be decided on its merits by the CIT(A).

Komalakshi v. Dy. CIT

292 ITR 99 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Admission of an appeal before the CIT(A) is subject to the mandatory condition of payment of tax due on the income returned by the assessee.

Vishnusharan Chandravanshi v. ITO

161 Taxmann.com 803 · 2024 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee is not obligated to compute and pay advance tax under sections 208 and 209 if they have no taxable income. Consequently, an appeal should not be dismissed for non-payment of advance tax in such circumstances.

Judgments citing Section 249(4)(a)

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 535/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.535 & 536/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Acypd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 57

filed by the Assessee against the order u/s.148 of the Act, on the ground that Assessee has not paid the taxes. 2.2 The Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced here as under : 249. (1) ………….. (4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless ... good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause.” 2.3 Thus, Section 249(4) envisages two situations. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has stated that assessee has not filed Return of Income and not paid the taxes, therefore, invoked

Ravindra Balasaheb Raykar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Yash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in invoking the provisions of section 249(4) and dismissing the appeal petition of appellant without providing an opportunity of being heard. 2. In facts and circumstances of the case

Kalpana Subramaniam, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(1), Pune

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

ITA 514/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.514/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Subramaniam, V The Income Tax Officer, 19A, B/H Regene Park, Ganpati S Ward-13(1), Pune. Chowk, Lunkad Towers, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Aswps7131C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Akashay Surana (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 28.12.2024For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250oSection 271(1)(c)

opportunity of being heard to the appellant before completing appellate proceedings. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by invoking section 249(4) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the 3 appellant has paid tax on the admitted income before filing appeal ... stipulated u/sec.249(4)(b) r.w.s. 234B of the Act. However, it is observed that ld.CIT(A) has invoked sub-clause “b” of section 249(4), which applies to the assessee who has not filed the Return of Income. For ready reference, Section 249(4) is reproduced here as under : “249

Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4411/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Unitech Holdings Ltd., Circle-27(1), Basement-6, Community Vs. New Delhi. Centre, Saket, Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaacu0237C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 249Section 249(4)(a)

assessee’s appeal on account of non-payment of admitted tax, we find that the ld. CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 249(4)(a) of the Act which reads as under: (4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing ... been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income returned by him; or 6. Admittedly, as per section 249(4)(a) of the Act, in a case where return of income has been filed by the assessee, then the appeal will be maintainable before

Senniappan Mani, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3230/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Senniappan Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7, Sivasakthi Nagar, Ward 2(1) 1St Street, K T C Main Road, Tirupur. Parappalayam, Tirupur 641 604. [Pan: Bbnpm 7005C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Senthil Kumar, Advocate Virtual, Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 232 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In Condonation Affidavit Given By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs.1,00,98,950/- U/S 69 On Account Of Unexplained Investment & Rs.1,11,66,838/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unexplained Money. Assessee Further Challenged The Order Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Who Did Not Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax Which Was Payable In The Light Of The Mandatory Provision Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act. The Assessee Is Now In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69Section 69A

paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable in the light of the mandatory provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Assessee is now in appeal before the tribunal with the following grounds:- ‘’1) The Impugned Order is bad, erroneous and unsustainable ... reasoned order holding that the Assessee was liable to file income tax return for Assessment Year 2017-18 and therefore as per section 249(4)(b) the Assessee was required to pay the amount equal to amount of advance tax, which was payable by him. 7. We have given thoughtful

Russell Adrian Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No98/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Russel Adrian Rodrigues, Vs. Ito, Ward-23(3)(1), 101, Diiago, “B” Sherly Ranjan Mumbai Road, Bandra West, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adwpr 7259 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Impugned Order Dated 28/12/2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: – 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal On Account Of Non-Compliance Of Section 249(4)(A) & 249(4)(B) Of The It Act., 1961 Completely Disregarding The Fact That Assessee Has Filed The Return & Paid The Due Tax Thereon As Mentioned In The Column 8.1 Of The Appeal Form No. 35. The Appellant Therefore Prays To Remand Back The Matter To Hon. Cit(A) For A Fresh Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Assessee's Appeal on account of non-compliance of section 249(4)(a) and 249(4)(b) of the IT Act., 1961 completely disregarding the fact that Assessee has filed the Return and paid the due tax thereon ... solitary grievance of the assessee is against the dismissal of its appeal by the learned CIT(A) by invoking the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА

Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

wherein the Department has raised the following grounds: 3. 1. The CIT(A) erred in admitting the assessee's appeal in contravention of section 249(4)(a), ignoring the fact that the assessee had not paid the tax due on the income returned by it. 2. Alternatively and without prejudice

Vishwanath Singh Rathode, Hoshangabad vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Itarsi

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

ITA 142/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Vishwanath Singh Rathode V. Income Tax Officer-1 Village Chapda Grahan, Income Tax Officer-1, Seonimalwa, Seonimalwa, Niyas Coloni Itarsi, Dist Madhya Pradesh-461221. Narmadapuram, Mp- 461111. Pan:Aezpr6401F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

case, Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not admitting the appeal contrary to relief sought under proviso to section 249(4) which is not justified and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Assessing Officer (A O) has not given ... Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal invoking the provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act on the basis that the assessee failed to deposit requisite tax. 3. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4

Ravi Developments, Kandivali Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1, Thane

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3864/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)

assessee was dismissed by order dated 26.03.2024 in ITA No.3864/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2021 – 2022 for non-compliance of the requirements of section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). A perusal of the said order would indicate that this Tribunal had confirmed total addition ... case of CIT vs. Manoj Kumar Beriwal (2009) 316 ITR 218, in order to submit that ‘tax’, for the purpose of section 249(4) does not include interest. Having regard to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, MA 243/Mum/2024 came to be allowed by order of the even date

Shri Nagin A Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 270/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

return nor made any claim for advance or self-assessment tax payments. Thus, the appeal could not be admitted under the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The authorized representative of the assessee were asked to provide evidence of any advance tax or self- assessment tax paid ... since the assessee had not filed return of income despite there being substantial unaccounted income, the appeal fell squarely under the provisions of section 249(4)(b), which stipulates that no appeal shall be admitted unless the advance tax owed has been paid. Ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessee

Shri Nagin A Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 1562/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

Cheeranchira Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kottayam vs. ITO, Ward 1& Tps, Thiruvalla

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 127/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcheeranchira Scb Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, Cheeranchira P.O. Kottayam District, Ward-1 & Tps, Vs. Kerala – 686 106. Thiruvalla. [Pan: Aaaac2102J] Kerala. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Swathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 249(4)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

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

Jaikaran Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1457/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 144Section 144oSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

dated 09/02/2024,dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on the ground that the Appeal is not admissible as per the proviso of Section 249 (4)(b) of the Act as the Assessee has not paid the amount equal to the 4 Jaikaran Nagar Vs. ITO amounts of advance tax.As ... filed ITR for the year under consideration and the Assessee is not liable to pay any advance tax in terms of proviso to Section 249 (4) of the Act, therefore submitted the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in dismissing the Appeal is not without admitting the Appeal before

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

referred to as "the CIT(A)") dated 03.04.2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee company as not maintainable, as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as "Act), is erroneous and bad in law and on facts. 1.1 That ... erred in law and on the facts in dismissing the appeal by applying the provisions of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act which can only be applied in case of filing of valid return of income and in the present case since the Id. AO treated the return

Pme Power Solutions India Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

Hemant V More, Kalyan vs. ACIT Central Circle-3Thane, Thane

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 2299/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pritpal SinghFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270A

carefully mentioned in the impugned appeal order that the assessee has not paid the admitted tax while filing the appeal. As per section 249(4)(a), the admitted tax should be paid before filing of the appeal. The show cause notices were issued but the assessee had not complied with

Hemant V More, Kalyan vs. ACIT Central Circle-3Thane, Thane

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 2298/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pritpal SinghFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270A

Hemant V More, Kalyan vs. ACIT Central Circle-3Thane, Thane

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 2297/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pritpal SinghFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270A

Hemant V More, Kalyan vs. ACIT Central Circle-3Thane, Thane

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 2296/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Pritpal SinghFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270A

Mohammed Abdus Sattar, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 423 To 425/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2019-20) Farida Banu, Acit, Central C/O: P Murali & Co, Chartered Accountants, 6 – Vs. Circle-2 (3), 3 – 655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Hyderabad [Pan :Afqpb6398R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 426 To 429/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20) Mohammad Abdus Sattar, Acit, Central C/O: P Murali & Co, Chartered Accountants, 6 – Vs. Circle-2 (3), 3 – 655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. Hyderabad [Pan :Aprps9709Q अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31 /07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 31/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. MuraliFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 132BSection 149Section 249Section 249(4)(a)

appeal filed by the assessees are not liable to be admitted for non-payment of admitted tax as per the provisions contained in section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Learned AR cited the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal ... filed by the assessee’s are not liable to be admitted for non- payment of admitted tax as per the provisions contained in section 249 (4) (a) of the Act. To this fact situation, the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Heena Kauser (supra) is applicable