← 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)

Jamnadas Purshotam Patel, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Center-1, Rajkot

ITA 60/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 250

therefore we find that ld. CIT(A) has accepted the above working blindly and without examination thereof. As per section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, it is the duty of the CIT(A) that while writing order there should be points for determination, the decision, thereon ... decision. Therefore, we find that order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not as per the mandate of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The learned CIT (A) has not himself, examined the source data in the above working, with help of seized documents and evidences

M/S. Garden Enterprise, Rajkot vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 89/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

M/S. Garden Enterprise, Rajkot vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 88/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

M/S. Garden Enterprise, Rajkot vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 87/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

M/S. Garden Enterprise, Rajkot vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 86/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. M/S Garden Enterprise, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 125/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

DCIT, Rajkot vs. M/S Garden Enterprise, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 124/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. M/S Garden Enterprise, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 123/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. M/S Garden Enterprise, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 122/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

DCIT, Rajkot vs. M/S Garden Enterprise, Rajkot

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 121/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

rejected by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, hence, such order is liable to be rejected. The overwhelming number of documentary evidences found by search team, which was corroborated

Anant Electricals and Engineers, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5454/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

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: Page 6 ITA No. 5454/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2013-14 Anant Electricals and Engineers, Thane “(6

Yogendra Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Etah

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

ITA 408/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

effective opportunity of being heard prior to enhancement as mandated under section 251(2); no cogent reasons have been recorded as required under section 250(6). The enhancement, therefore, deserves to be struck down on this ground alone. 11. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax- Jalgaon

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

ITA 1948/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1948/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 R B Diamond House, Opposite Manohar Sarees, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon-425001 Pan : Aaifr9130Q Vs. Pne-C-1, Range-25, Circle-1, Cit, Jalgaon अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- "Ground No. 1: Ex-Parte Order Bad In Law 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ex Parte Order Passed By Cit(A)/ Nafc Is Bad In Law & Violates Principles Of Natural Justice. This Has Lead To A Denial Of Effective Opportunity For A Hearing. Ground No. 2: Violation Of Section 250(6) 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A)/ Nafc Failed To Comply With Section 250(6), Requiring Reasoned Findings On Each Ground Of Appeal. Ground No. 3: Non-Response Of Notices Due To Medical Issue 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hearing Notices Were Not Responded To Due To The Illness Of Ms. Rupal Bagrecha Who Is Taking Care Of Accounting, All Income Tax & Other Statutory Compliances. Her E-Mail Id Rupalbagrecha21@Gmail.Com Is Registered On The Income Tax Portal. She Was Suffering From Severe Symptoms Of Epilepsy & Undergoing Medical Investigation From February 2025 Onwards, Preventing Timely Communication Of Notices To The Tax Consultant, Constituting Reasonable & Sufficient Cause For Non-Response.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 250(6)Section 69A

violates principles of natural justice. This has lead to a denial of effective opportunity for a hearing. Ground No. 2: Violation of Section 250(6) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A)/ NAFC failed to comply with Section 250(6), requiring reasoned findings ... determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Jeetendra Laxmanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1758/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblejeetendra Laxmanbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 15/C, Sarda Shopping Centre, Ward-6(1)(1), Rabari Colony, Ahmedabad. Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad-380026. [Pan :Aocpp0793 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 16.07.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

erred, both in law and on facts, in passing ex-parte order and that too in gross violation of section 250(6) of the Act. 2.In the facts of the present case, Ld. AO was not justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Jeetendra L Pate

Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Pune vs. ITO Ward, Hingoli

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

ITA 2113/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ।येंयपीण प णी या न् " ीी " IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH

Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Pune vs. ITO Ward, Hingoli

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

ITA 2112/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ।येंयपीण प णी या न् " ीी " IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH

Sureshkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 6(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2963/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2963/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Suresh Kumar, Income Tax Officer, No.25/74C, 9Th Street, Non-Corp Ward-6(1), Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. Chennai-600 019. [Pan: Bgcps5657N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.K.Meenakshisundaram, Itp प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.K.Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के

Ramchandra Kadava Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 4360/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 69C

duty bound to adjudicate the ground so raised and as such the impugned order of CIT(A) is arbitrary and contrary to section 250(6) of the Act. 2((1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice u/s 148 having been issued without recording proper reasons