← 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)

Swaran Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mohali

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Chauhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

grounds raised on merits. solely on the basis of alleged non-prosecution 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that under section 250(6) of income tax act 1961, he was duly bound to dispose of appeal by ITA 1132/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 2 passing a speaking order

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

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

Rajib Dutta Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2078/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No.: 2078/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajib Dutta Gupta. We note that section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination

Smt. Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma, Raiganj vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Raiganj

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

ITA 1085/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 69A

allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. 8. We further note that section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision as well

Amandeep Singh S/O Sh Kirpal Singh, Haryana vs. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma ITO Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7147/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7147/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Amandeep Singh, Jatton Gate, Jattan Mohlla, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Eceps-7045-M बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Karnal, Haryana 132001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Sumaksh Mahajan, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 07.10.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 311 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 311 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Sumaksh Mahajan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

ground of appeal raised by the assessee. The obligation on CIT(A) to dispose of appeal on merits flow from the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. In view of the above legal position, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same

Shagun Goel, Delhi vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 7142/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7142/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2018-19) Shagun Goel, Flat No. 373, Sangam Apartments, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 110034 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aeupg-7813-B बिाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), R. No. 380A Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi 110002 ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : None प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.10.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. A Perusal Of The Assessment Order Shows That The Assessment In The Case Of Assessee For Ay 2018-19 Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received, That The Assessee Has Made Bogus Purchases To The Tune Of Rs.81,95,949/- From The Alleged Shell Entity M/S. Balaji Trading Company. The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading Of Ferrous & Non-Ferrous Metals. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69C

appeal on merits. It is a well settled law that the CIT(A), being the First Appellate Authority, is statutorily 3 required under section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order on merits. The CIT(A) does not have the power

Sanjay Singh, Muzzaffarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(4), Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8008/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8008/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sanjay Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, 884/A, Panchenda Road, Ankit Ward-3(2)(4), Vihar, Muzaffarnagar, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh-251001 Uttar Pradesh-251201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aqgps6474G Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075211663(1) Dated 28.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Bimla Yadav, Bhiwani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bhiwani

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8007/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8007/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bimla Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, W/O Gian Singh, Shivaji Marg, Ward-1, Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021 Haryana-127021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Behpb0565H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1066175377(1) Dated 28.06.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

BHA vs. Agar Dealers Pvt Ltd, Delhivs.ITO Ward-4(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2445/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 50C

seized with the matter as per above direction of the ld. Co-ordinate Bench, is required to follow the procedure laid down under section 250(6) of the Act while disposing of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) is required to state the points of determination, decision thereon

Prem Gupta, Barbil vs. ITO, Ward, Keonjhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 695/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.695/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Prem Gupta, Prop. Prem Traders, Vs Ito, Ward, Keonjhar Daily Market, Barbil-758035 Pan No. : Auppg 8445 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Chitta Ranjan Panda, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chitta Ranjan Panda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

grounds of appeal is that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte contrary to the mandatory requirement of section 250(6) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing, reiterating to the grounds of appeal, ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed

Bipin Nath, Kuakhia vs. ITO, Ward(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 632/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R.L Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.632/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Bipin Nath Rasulpur, Kabirpur, Vs Ito, Ward (1), Cuttack Jajpur-755009, Odisha Pan No. : Apspn 5964 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arun Kr Dash & Biswaranjan Panda, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kr Dash and BiswaranjanFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 263

documentary evidence in support of the claim. Ld CIT(A) has not considered all the issues on merits as per mandate in section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, we are inclined

Sanjay Mukati, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Main Building Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 510/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleand**

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)

order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the CIT(A) has not passed a meritorious order as per mandate of section 250(6) of the Act which provides *"The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

Jastej Gorowara, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 277/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

also argued that the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits, which is contrary to section 250(6) of the Act, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) v. CIT [2016] 240 Taxman ... assessee’s appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. Such disposal is not in consonance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the first appellate authority to pass a reasoned order dealing with each ground of appeal. In the interest of substantial

Jastej Gorowara, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 276/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

also argued that the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits, which is contrary to section 250(6) of the Act, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) v. CIT [2016] 240 Taxman ... assessee’s appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. Such disposal is not in consonance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the first appellate authority to pass a reasoned order dealing with each ground of appeal. In the interest of substantial

M/S Kubera Dal & Besan Millsz, Pune vs. CIT Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1966/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1966/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Kubera Dal & Besan V Dy.Cit, Millsz, S Circle-5, Pune. 21 To 24, Marketyard, Gultekadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aakfk3139J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Advocate Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake – (On Rotation Duty) Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 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] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 24.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

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

Wines 2000 and Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1210/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69A

considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act which is reproduced here under for your ready reference: "(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing

Surender Tomar, Bikaji Cama Place, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7773/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7773/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Surender Tomar, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/85, Near Bikaji Cama Place, Ward-29(1), Safdarjung Enclave, South West New Delhi-110002 Delhi, New Delhi-110029 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpk6330Q Assessee By: Sh. Deepanshu, Adv. & Sh. Ankst Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075910117(1) Dated 30.04.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Deepanshu, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 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

Neeraj Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2 (2) (1), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7595/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7595/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Neeraj Chaudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. B-24, Ps Sihani Get Gagan Ward-2(2)(1), Enclave, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad-201009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axspc7168C Assessee By: Sh. Pankaj Singh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1080715441(1) Dated 15.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 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

Nitin Aggarwal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7367/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7367/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Nitin Aggarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1821A, Govindpuri Extension, Ward-29(1), Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apnpa5358R Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081700186(1) Dated 13.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Ashok Chaturvedi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5156/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Ms Renu Jauhriashok Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Dcit, 305, 3Rd Floor, Pamposh Central Circle-2, Enclave, Greater Kailash- Noida 1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacpc1661P

For Appellant: Shri Vir Sain Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234A(1)Section 250(6)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT