“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)

Mr. Ahok Kumar Ajay, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Ward-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 747/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.747/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Shri Ashok Kumar Ajay, The Asst. Commissioner – No.11, Clemens Road, Of Income Tax, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Non-Corporate Ward-9(1), Chennai. [Pan: Afapa 0605 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri Educational and Charitable Trust, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.585/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri The Ito (Exemptions), Educational & Charitable Trust, Ward-2, 069, Thirupaninatham, Chennai. Ennanagaram & Post, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore-604 001. [Pan: Aabtk 6500 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Kapil Deo Tripathi, Lucknow vs. DCIT Circle-4 Lucknow, Lucknow

ITA 231/LKW/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.231/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kapil Dev Tripathi C-2395, Raja Ji Puram, Lucknow, Up-226017 Pan: Abzpt7328G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax Acit/Dcit-4, Lucknow . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Prashant Kr. Verma [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against The Ex-Parte Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053079897(1) Dt. 23/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/ Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] The Assessee Came In Appeal U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Prashant Kr. Verma [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 40

mandated to state point of determination, its decision thereon and clear reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. This exercise by the Ld. CIT(A) is a pre-requisite and invariably necessary for each assessment year in each case irrespective of its repetition. This is because ... NFAC with a direction to deal therewith de-novo after according two effective opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. The appeal in result is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced

Sudhir Yashwant Kadam, Ratnagiri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

ITA 767/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sudhir Yashwant Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, H.No.127, Bahutule Wadi, S Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Mavlange, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra – 415616. Pan: Abfpk2131A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 16.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ito Of Rs.13,47,713/- Representing The Total Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account, Ignoring Submission Of The Appellant That: A. The Source Of The Cash Deposit Being Out Of His Business Turnover No Addition Is Sudhir Yashwant Kadam [A]

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

Sujata Suresh Nikam, Kalamboli Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -5 Panvel, Panvel

ITA 474/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujata Suresh Nikam, V The Income Tax Officer, Kl 4/10/3, Sector 4E, S Ward-5, Panvel. Kalamboli, Maharashtra – 410218. Pan: Abspn5521A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Kadrekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) – Nfac Has Erred In Confirming Order Imposing Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Failed To Consider The Sujata Suresh Nikam [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271B

Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi, Parbhani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Parbhani

ITA 396/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub V The Income Tax Officer, Qureshi, S Ward, Parbhani. Khureshi Traders, Khureshi Mohala, Purna, Parbhani, Maharashtra – 431511. Pan: Bkjpk1916R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. M.N.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing Appellant’S Appeal Alleging ‘Unexplained Cash Deposit In The Bank Account' In Para 5.2. Appellant Prays For Allowing Assessee'S Appeal Cancelling Addition Made By Assessing Officer As Issue Before Cit[A] Is Income Assessed Estimating Profit. Shaik Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi [A]

Section 234Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

M/S Aura Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 385/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 250(6)

dates of hearing without considering the merit of the case. Thus the order passed by the ld CIT(A) is in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Further we note that even before the AO the case was not attended or represented on behalf of the assessee

M/S Aura Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 384/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 250(6)

Nikunj Dhanuka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 32, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar & Aryan Kochar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arjun Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(6)Section 282

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE

M/S. Karnataka Power Transmiss, Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 994/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2020-21 M/S Karnataka Power Transmiss, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, 71-71, Kptcl Employee Co-Op. Power Raichur. House, Station Road, Raichur – 584 102. Pan – Aaaak 4223 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, C.A Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavthe Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 29/04/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2024-25/1064431034(1) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is Cooperative Society Registered Under The Karnataka State Co-Operative Society’S Act 1959. The Society Is Engaged In The Activity Of Carrying Of Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 24/09/2020 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny After Issuing Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Page 2 Of 4 The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Earned Interest Income Received From Cooperative Institutions Amounting To Rs.10,12,973/- & Dividend Income Of Rs.1,13,240/-. The Ao Relying On The Judgment Of Dcit Vs. Totagars Co-Operative Society Ltd, Has Held That Assessee Is Not Entitled For Deduction On The Amounts Of Interest Income As Well As Dividend Income. Accordingly, The Ao Assessed That Income Under The Head ‘Income From Other Sources’ & Made An Addition Of Rs 11,86,369/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250(6)Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala

ITA 874/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

Year is 2010-11. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 28/03/2018 in Appeal No. 87/IT/CITA/PTA/13-14 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the “ impugned order”. The assessee was in first appeal before

The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

Khengarsinh Jadavbhai Gohel, Petlad vs. ITO Petlad, Petlad

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

ITA 579/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

Departmental Representative submitted and prayed that the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A) be confirmed. On being asked about the compliance of Section 250(6) by ld. Addl/JCIT(A) while passing the appellate order, the ld. Departmental Representative fairly submitted that ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has not decided the issues arising ... issues arising in the grounds of appeal on merits in accordance with law, as is obligated and required under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee has not complied with

Padmanaba Reddy Metukuru, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 107/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine. 4. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points ... facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. If the request of the learned AR is granted, affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 541/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee can produce all the documents if an opportunity is given to rebut the contention of the assessing authority. We note that Section 250(6) casts a duty upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination, decision thereon as well

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Rajesh Govind Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 269/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Pramod Dhanaji Patil Represented by Legar Heir Nirmala Patil, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 249/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Pramod Dhanaji Patil Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 178, Kaulali Ward-28(2)(4) Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alnpp8443Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

P a g e | 1 Pramod Dhanaji Patil Vs. ITO, Ward 28(2)(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Irla Co-Op Hsg Soceity Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ward 25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4269/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Irla Co-Op Hsg Society Vs. Ito, Ward 25(2)(5) Limited, 191/A, Prime Maharashtra – 400054 Mall Irla, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400056 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaai4878F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pramod Parida Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 13.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23.11.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Disallowance U/S 43B- 61,01,040/- I) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Statutory Liabilities Without Appreciating That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) & Further Erred In Holding That The Appellant, A Co-Op Housing Society (Chs), Is Doing Business Activity, Therefore, As Sec 438 Is Not Applicable On The Face It Being Eligible For The Benefit U/S 80P, The Disallowance Of Rs.61.01.040/- Is Uncalled For & The Same May Be Deleted Ii) Without Prejudice To Above, The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Concept Of Mutuality Does Not Apply To The Appellant Where There Is Close Nexus Of All Its Funds Flow Are Utilized Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members, Hence The Disallowance Made May Be Deleted As Consistency Needs To Be Respected. 2. Taxability U/S. 22 Or U/S. 56- Rental Or Hire Charges Rs.8,73,634/-

For Appellant: Pramod ParidaFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 43BSection 56Section 80P

P a g e | 1 IRLA Co-op HSG Society Ltd. VS. ITO, Ward 25(2)(5) IN THE INCOME

Convonix Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4061/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyconvonix Systems Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited, 15Th Floor, Urmi Of Income Tax, Circle Estate, 95, Ganpatrao 15(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Kadam Marg, Delisle Road Aayakar Bhavan, S.O. Mumbai, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra – 400013 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc5795P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pratik Shah Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax ("Ld. Ao") Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Assessing The Income Of The Appellant At Inr 18,07,08,220/-Instead Of Returned Income Of Inr 17,15,15,710/- & The Demand Raised Thereon On The Appellant Is Invalid & Bad In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ['1D. Cit(A)'] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ld. Ao In Making An Adhoc Disallowance Of 50% In Relation To The Shared Service Expenses Amounting To Inr 91,92,505/-.

For Appellant: Pratik ShahFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

P a g e | 1 Convonix Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE