← All Phrases

“Section 260(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 260Section 260(6)5 judgments

BALKISHAN MOHANLAL GANDHI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 324/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 260(6)

present his case. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non–prosecution and has not passed a speaking order under section 260(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the case is fit to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re– adjudication. We order accordingly

SRI. RITVIK MURALI DHAR,,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1122/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri.Shrishir S. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subrmanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 260(6)

email account due to the fear of hackers. It is also observed that CIT(A) has decided the appeals ignoring the purport of section 260(6) of the Act, which section provide that the CIT(A) should decide each and every point disputed in the appeal and should also give

SRI. RITVIK MURALI DHAR,,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1121/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri.Shrishir S. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subrmanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 260(6)

email account due to the fear of hackers. It is also observed that CIT(A) has decided the appeals ignoring the purport of section 260(6) of the Act, which section provide that the CIT(A) should decide each and every point disputed in the appeal and should also give

SRI. RITVIK MURALI DHAR, ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri.Shrishir S. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subrmanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 260(6)

email account due to the fear of hackers. It is also observed that CIT(A) has decided the appeals ignoring the purport of section 260(6) of the Act, which section provide that the CIT(A) should decide each and every point disputed in the appeal and should also give

A. K. BUILDERS,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/SRT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) A.K. Builders, I.T.O., Jay Apartment, Kathiria, Nani Daman Ward, Vs. Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut)- Daman. 396210. Pan No. Aamfa 7826 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 260(6)

admitting the appeal and dismissing the appeal for want of proper prosecuting and not passing a speaking order as required by Section 260(6). 2. Prayer. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) may be directed to hear the appeal on merits. 2.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.3 Any other relief