← 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)

Sh. Darshan Singh S/O Sh. Dalip Singh, Ludhiana vs. I.T.O., Ward -3(5), Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/CHANDI/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application of Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC

M/S. Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 892/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad (in short referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”) of even date i.e. 25.1.2018 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. It was common ground that

M/S. Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 891/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad (in short referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”) of even date i.e. 25.1.2018 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. It was common ground that

Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., Nagpur vs. Director of Income Tax, Nagpur

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

ITA 56/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., The Director Of Income C-108, Hingna Road, Midc V Tax, Industrial Area, Hingna, S Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, 3Rd Floor, Nagpur – 440028. Pan: Aaacb5340H Room No.301, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh Loya – Ca-Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Passed U/S250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Fa Of The Act Dated 27.09.2019 Passed By Director Of Income Tax(Intelligence & Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., [A]

Section 2Section 250Section 27Section 271FSection 285Section 285B

result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. 4 Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., [A] 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

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

NFSC erred on facts and in law in not deciding the appeal on merits in terms of provisions of section 250(6) r.w.s. 251(1)(a) has held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra

M/S. Global Ship Trade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1039/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S.Global Ship Trade P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(2) 321, Madhav Hill Vs Bhavnagar. Waghawadi Road Bhavnagar. Pan : Aadcg 1889 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessee against order passed by the Ld.Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-XX, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)” dated 24.03.204 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under

Shweta Infrastructure & Housing (I) Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. DCIT, Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3851/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shweta Infrastructure & Housing Dy. Cit, Circle 13(2)(2), (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Samraat Head Quarters, A33, 7Th Marine Lines, Lane, Satpur Midc Road, Nice Mumbai-400020. Area, Nashik-422007. Pan No. Aajcs 4306 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2024

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 220(6)Section 246A

appellant was dismissed for non dismissed for non-attendance.” 4.1 In our opinion, In our opinion, as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), tax Act, 1961 (in short

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1) Now DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 474/AHD/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2003-04 Nirma Limited Dcit, Cir.3(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. Ashram Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaacn 5350 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Revenue By Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/04/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

assessee against order passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-12, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)” dated 10.4.2023 under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The effective grounds for adjudication raised

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1) Now DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 460/AHD/2023[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr DR
Section 244ASection 250(6)

referred to as "CIT(A)" for short] dated 02.03.2023 and 07.03.2023, pertaining to the Assessment Years (AY) 1993-94 & 1998-99 respectively, under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act” for short]. 2. It was stated that the issue arising in both

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1) Now DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 284/AHD/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr DR
Section 244ASection 250(6)

referred to as "CIT(A)" for short] dated 02.03.2023 and 07.03.2023, pertaining to the Assessment Years (AY) 1993-94 & 1998-99 respectively, under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act” for short]. 2. It was stated that the issue arising in both

Lokmangal Cooperative Bank Limited, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 1091/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotelokmangal Cooperative Bank Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Ltd., 128, Murarji Peth, Solapur. Opp. Sevasdan High School, Solapur-413001 (Mh) Pan: Aaaal 0119 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde,Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 12.09.2023 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde,DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „A‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. DIPAK P

Sri Vijay Mining Works, Shaikpet, Tolichowki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 139/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR appeared for Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

learned CIT(A), the appeal was disposed-of ex parte, without referring to the merits of the case. He further submitted that under section 250(6) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon with reason for the decision ... B.N.Bhattachargee and another 118 ITR 461 (SC), dismissed the appeal. 6. 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 for determination, the decision thereon and the reason

The Kadavalur Service Cooperative Bank Limited No3821, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Guruvayur

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

ITA 639/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Sri.Dileep Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 56Section 57Section 80A(5)Section 80P

Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the assessee agitating the Order dated 15/6/2023 giving appeal effect to the order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31/5/2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], allowing the assessee

Rajesh Bhalchandra Gharat, New Panvel vs. CIT(A), Panvel

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 36/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.36/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर

M/S. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

ITA 45/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 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(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

Section 14Section 153ASection 154Section 250

result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. 4 M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] 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

Mariamma Joseph, Kottayamn vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

ITA 672/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 210Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Bhagwati Medical and General Store, Amalner Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 35/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.35/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

only passed his ex parte order but 2 ITA.No.35/PUN/2024 Bhagwati Medical and General Store also not complied with the rigor of section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame the points of determination. Faced with this situation, the assessee’s substantive grounds pleaded in the instant appeal

Namdeo Indarrao Gore, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5 Pune, Pune

ITA 1397/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1397/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Namdeo Indarrao Gore, The Dy.Commissioner Of Subhadra Cme Engineers, V Income Tax, Plot No.1, Subhadra House, S Circle-5, Pune. Nanded Phata, Maharashtra – 411041. Pan: Aavpg0671L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Ar Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2024 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 26.10.2023. The Assessee For A.Y.2015-16 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Ao Erred In Making & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.30,71,906/- U/S 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act On Account Of Unpaid Sundry Creditors. Namdeo Indarrao Gore [A]

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. 4 Namdeo Indarrao Gore [A] 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

Vijay Chimaji Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(5), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1278/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1278/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर

Rajesh Dashrath Sawale, Kharghar vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 28/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.28/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. AthavaleFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

held that the assessee has deliberately not appeared before the NFAC, there is no lower appellate adjudication in tune with section 250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon. Faced with this situation, I restore the assessee’s instant appeal back