Which cases are most cited on Section 250(6)?

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) — 2,267 citing judgments; Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT (223 ITR 480) — 2,040 citing judgments; CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461) — 1,656 citing judgments; CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614) — 659 citing judgments; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (2 SCC 107) — 451 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 250(6)?

BharatTax indexes 4,093 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 250(6) (Section 250(6)).

← All Phrases

“Section 250(6)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 250(6)?

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) is the decision most relied on for Section 250(6), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax. An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Section References (mined)Section 250Section 250(6)4,093 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 250(6) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 250(6)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

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.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court

451

citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court

391

citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT

296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court

351

citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court

267

citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Judgments citing Section 250(6)

Joginder Payla, Haryana vs. DCIT (OSD), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2670/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Sharad Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 250(6)

hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon

The Simaliya Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 2442/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 69C

erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte in violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective

Bhawna Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

P a g e | 1 Bhawna Kapoor (AY 2014-15) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE

Kiran Wati, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 135 days in filing appeal and appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 362/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Kiran Wati, Vs. Dcit 2473/13, Goverdhan Central Circle Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Noida New Delhi 110032 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahnpk 8472 A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250(6)

P a g e | 1 Kiran Wati (AY 2011-12) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE

Trambak Raghunath Kale, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Amravati

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 30/NAG/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Nag/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Trambak Raghunath Kale, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Congress Nagar, Camp Road, Ward-3, Amravati Amravati-444602, Maharashtra Pan: Bbbpk6461L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR ‘SMC’ BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.30/NAG/2026

Ranjana Devi, Maur Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bathinda

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision

S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 817/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 816 & 817/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) S.S. Industries, Plot No.610, 611, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 620, 621, Urla Industrial Area, Village- Tax, Central Circle 1, Raipur, Central Accholi, Distt.-Raipur, C.G.-492003 Revenue Building, Raipur, C. G. Pan: Aclfs9015L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 20/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

before him/her after discussing the issues in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders though he, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen ... orders before him, whether or not the issues have been raised by the assessee before him. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section

S.S. Industries, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 816/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

Mohit Jain, Indore vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 844/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

S-Net Freight (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 22(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3655/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumars-Net Freight (India) Limited, Ito, 301, 3Rd Floor In Aggarwal Ward-22(1), Metro Mall, Plot No.23, Vs. Delhi. Sector-20, Dwarka, Delhi-110075, Pan:Aafcs3703G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tanpreet Singh Kohli, Ca Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 12.12.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.10. 2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer, Ward- 22(1), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ao’) For Asst. Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30.11.2015 Declaring Loss Of Rs.4,98,350/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 08.04.2016 & Notice 142(1) Along With Detailed S-Net Freight (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Ito

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 72

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Vineet Kumar, Dharamshala vs. Income Tax Officer, Dharmshala

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

ITA 1090/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69A

LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record ... dismissed the appeal without properly adjudicating upon the contentions raised by the assessee and without passing a speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to frame proper points for determination and has not dealt with the submissions and evidences

Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Path Sansta Mary., Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 192/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pathsansta Mary Ward-1(1), Kolhapur Kodoli, At Post Kodoli, Tal. Panhala, Kolhapur-416114 Maharashtra Pan : Aabat4234H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.192/PUN/2026

Praveen Sanjiv, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3834/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3834/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Praveen Sanjiv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 45, W Block, 7Th Street, Anna Non Corporate Ward 7(3), Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Fzzps0216R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

vehemently argued that merely remanding to the file of the Assessing Officer without deciding the issue on merits violates the appellate obligation under section 250(6) of the Act. Further, he submits that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to adjudicate the legal issue that no income arises under section ... Officer for fresh consideration as rightly pointed out by the ld. AR, without deciding the issue on merits violates the appellate obligation under section 250(6) of the Act. We note that the assessee purchased two immovable properties at Neelankarai, Chennai under registered document vide Nos. 1998/2015 on different dates

Nidec Mobility India Private Limited, Gurgaon, India vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), Central Ner, Guwahati

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

ITA 3616/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sourav Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

appeal on merits. The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass appellate order in compliance with the provisions of section 250(6), as ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned and speaking order on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 250 ... adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits , such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6) , and also higher appellate authorities will be deprived to see what weighed in the mind of the ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating appeal

Vicky Agro Food Products & Suppliers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-8(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 9158/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvicky Agro Food Ito-8(3)(3), Products & Suppliers Room No. 616, 6Th Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 125/129, Central M. K. Road, Warehousing Churchgate, Mumbai- Corporation Building 400020 Reay Road (East), Mumbai-400 033 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv3351K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kiran Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

without examining the earlier correspondence and without providing adequate opportunity to cure the alleged defect, is not in consonance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act which requires the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned order stating the points for determination

Pratik Ravjibhai Kacharola, Morbi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Morbi

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

ITA 692/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 692/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Pratik Ravjibhai Kacharola Vs. The Ito, Ward – 1 4-Anumpam Society, B/H. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Akshardham Apartment, Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ravapar Road, Morbi - 363641 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bwrpk4078C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: 18/02/2026

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Binod Baruah, Tinsukia vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 433/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, DR

Section 250(6)

passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned

Kailash Jalan, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Dibrugarh

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

ITA 383/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shriduvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, DR

Section 250(6)

Singdon Ronghang, Assam vs. ITO Ward 2, Dimapur

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

ITA 361/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Singdon Ronghang Ito Ward, 2, Dimapur Tuliram Ronghang Rongtheang, Dimapur-797103, Karbianglong, Diphu-782460, Vs. Nagaland Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cdppr0948Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dipak Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.03.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

point of determination and his decision thereon and the reason for taking the said decision as mandated by the provision of section 250(6) of the Act which apparently has not been done by the appellate authority. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem

Aniket Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 939/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A'sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL