← All Phrases

“Section 250(6)”

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)

Pravin Rajaram Thorat, Satara vs. ITO Ward-1, Satara

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

ITA 1457/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1457/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pravin Rajaram Thorat, V The Income Tax Officer, Karve Karad, Satara, S Ward-1, Satara. Maharashtra – 415110. Pan: Afmpt4673F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhishek Meshram–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 27.07.2022 Passed U/Sec.250 Of

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

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

Ramgiri, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4394/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69

appeal after discussing the issues in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order 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 for his consideration ... vary it so as to either to enhance or to reduce the penalty. On cumulative consideration of 4 Ramgiri 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

Sh Abhishek Gupta, Agra vs. ITO W2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 172/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarshri Abhishek Gupta The Income Tax Officer 405, Anupam Omerean Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad, Heights, Mughal Road, V. U.P. Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Uttar Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpg0755D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Written adj. application rejectedFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(3)

passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues arising in the appeal on merits. We draw reference to provision of Section 250(6) wherein the ld. CIT(A) is required to specify point of determination ,decision therein and the reasoning thereof . The learned ... parte order in limine without deciding the issues arising in appeal on merits, which is not in consonance with provisions of Section 250(6). Even, ld. CIT(Appeals) has not made any enquiry before dismissing the appeal of the assessee, as contemplated u/s. 250

Sarita Agrawal, Gwalior vs. ACIT, Gwalior

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

ITA 170/AGR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarmrs. Sarita Agrawal Acit Geeta Colony Aayakar Bhawan Dal Bazar, Gwalior- V. City Centre 474001 Gwalior-474001 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk3445P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 153A

appeal. We further observe that the ld. CIT(Appeals) 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 ... 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

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)

appeal without disposing off each ground of appeal on merits, without stating the reasons for determination and the decisions thereon in terms of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act., 1961. The Appellant therefore prays to remand back the matter to Hon. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication

Fiero Fernandes, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 23/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.23/Mum/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Fiero Fernandes Vs. Ito, Ward-42(2)(2), 1202 Lourdes Heritage, Mumbai Opposite Our Lady Of Lourdes Church, Orlem Malad West Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaspf 3097 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm : The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 05/11/2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. We find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

Khushboo Amit Bhayani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 27(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 100/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalkhushboo Amit Bhayani, A/405, Siddhivinayak Plaza Chs Ltd., Simpoli Link, Road Chikuwadi, Borivali (West), Mumbai, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra – 400092. Pan: Avlpb 8903F V/S Acit, Circle-27(2), Room No. 419, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, ……………. Respondent Navi Mumbai - 400703 Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri A.C. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. We find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

Sameer Subhash Hosmani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 35(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2412/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsameer Subhash Hosmani, Flat No. 1, Shreenath Dham, W.S. Road, Opp. Jana Seva Bank, Dahisar East, Mumbai - 400068 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Adiph3121L V/S Ito, Ward 35(3)(1), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400051 Maharashtra Assessee By : Ms. Rakhi Dholakiya, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Dholakiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 56Section 69C

filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds ITA No.2412-Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) 3 raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. We find that in CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

Puneet Singhvi, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

decided the appeal on merits which is contradictory to the mandate of Section 250(6). The same is reproduced here under for your ready reference: “(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon ... 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

Pravin Sakharam Gulambe, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 2674/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2674/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shri Pravin Sakharam Vs Ito, Ward-5, Gulambe, Panvel Shubham Raje Enterprises House No. 70 A, At Bhagad, Post Vile Tal Mangaon, Dist Raigad 402308, Maharashtra Pan-Aslpg2336A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl
Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Ravinanda Landmarks Unit 3, Pune vs. ITO Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2625/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wared-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2624/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2623/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Ravinanda Landmarks, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 2622/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Poona Shims Kamagarsahakari Patsanstha, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 2332/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2332/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Poona Shimsari Vs Ito, Ward 9(3), Kamgarsahkari Patsanstha, Pune Mumbai Pune Highway, Vadgaon Maval Pune- 412106 Maharashtra Pan-Aadap9903D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Sangeeta Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2340/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sangeeta Agarwal………....………………………………………..….……….Appellant 55/1B, Strand Road, 2Nd Floor, Posta, Kolkata – 700006. [Pan: Acrpa8642H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Piyush Lakhotia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 15.04.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,10,980/-. In The Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 & 144B Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs.33,84,750/- Which Was Alleged To Be Long-Term Capital Gains Which Was Claimed As Exemption By The Assessee In Her Return Of Income. 3. Dissatisfied With The Above Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order. However, The Ld.

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Cherrie Gems Private Limited, Roorkee vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 98/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate order dated 24.10.2023 ['the impugned order'] passed under section 250(6) w. r. t. section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Page 1 Cherrie Gems ... each ground of appeal after discussing the issues in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and to then

Madan Mohan Gahtori, Udham Singh Nagar vs. ACIT, U.S.Nagar

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

ITA 56/DDN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 131Section 144ASection 153ASection 244ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69ASection 69C

each ground of appeal after discussing the issues in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and to then ... Page 5 Madan Mohan Gahtori either to enhance or to reduce the penalty. 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

Yogendra Kumar Gupta, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Gwl, Gwalior

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

ITA 176/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 48Section 50

Additional Legal Ground) "That the appellate order passed by the NFAC dated 30.03.2024 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, they have passed the order without giving therein the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decisions ... submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed an ex-parte order, which is not in consonance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, as the 6 | P a g e appeal has not been decided on merits by the ld. CIT(Appeals), and the assessment order

Sh Prakash Narayan Agrawal, Gwalior vs. ACIT Circle -2, Gwalior

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/AGR/2022[2010 -11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalprakash Narayan Agrawal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2 D-55, Harishankar Puram Aayakar Bhawan, Gwalior – 474002 City Centre, Gwalior- 474011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abupa9961F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, SR. DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

Rs.61,90,598/- as business income than capital gains, in the course of assessment framed on 06.03.2014, without having ensured compliance to Section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to first frame the points of determination than followed by speaking adjudication thereof. 4. That being the case, we deem