← 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)

M/S Bhupendra Autotech Industries (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana

ITA 5826/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 5826/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 5828/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 M/S Bhupendra Autotech Industries Vs Acit, (P) Ltd., F-1098, Basement, Central Circle-1, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 Gurgaon, Haryana-122016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb8550H Assessee By : Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 5826 To 5828/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Common Order Dated 26.08.2025 In Case Nos. 10834 & 10014/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2013- 14 & 2017-18, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) & 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

instance 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. It is therefore

Poonam Sodhi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 7105/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7105/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Poonam Sodhi, 5217, Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Bfvps-5961-R बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate 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 The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vododara [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.07.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 8,03,000/- Comprising Of Income From House Property & Interest Income. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine Large Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Vis-À-Vis The Returned Income. Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

ground of appeal raised by the assessee. This 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

U P State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 352/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

further directed to decide the grounds of appeal and the issues in dispute through speaking order on merits, ensuring adherence to Section 250(6) of Income Tax Act. All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with foregoing directions. (D). In the result, the appeal

Anwar Husain Mehboob Shaikh, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2561/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2561/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anwar Husain Mehboob V The Income Tax Officer, Shaikh, S Jalgaon. H. No.K 258/I Railway North Area, Bhusawal, Jalgaon – 425201. Pan: Bodps9742F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 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.2018-19 Dated 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 31.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

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

Nimblelogik Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2, Pune

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

ITA 2263/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23 Nimblelogik Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle – 2, Pune F No.A6/103, Meghapolis, Vs. Sunway Ph-Iii, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aahcn2080P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin P Kumar Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69

grounds of appeal. However, he has 4 simply dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution which is not as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer ... NFAC has not decided the appeal on merit but has simply dismissed the same for want of prosecution. We find the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which read as under: 5 “250(1). … (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing

The Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. ( in Liquidation), Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward- -1, Dhule

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

ITA 1927/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 21(2)Section 250Section 80P

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

Katrapally Venumadhav, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1396/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270ASection 282

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय

Katrapally Venumadhav, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1395/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270ASection 282

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय

Vishal Chitkara, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3397/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 69A

perused the relevant material on record. We find that the order of the CIT(A) is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We are therefore, of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard ... restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on all the issues raised, as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being

ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik vs. Taparia Tools Limited, Nashik

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1337/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Amit BobdeFor Respondent: Shri Viral Shah
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

would lead to violation of principle of natural justice. It would be pertinent to note here the relevant provisions of section 250(6). The same are reproduced for ready reference 250. (6) The order of the (Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall

Aliveni Gurram, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 1297/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1297/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Aliveni Gurram Vs. Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward – 2 Pan:Burpg4403M Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

evaluate the specific grounds raised in Form 35 and passed a non-speaking order without recording reasoned findings, thereby violating provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Page 2 of 7 ITA No 1297 of 2025 Aliveni Gurram 9. The learned AO erred in determining the total

Manti Devi, Aurangabad vs. Assesment Unit, NFAC, ITO Ward- 3 (4), Sasaram

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

ITA 572/PAT/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) Manti Devi Nfac, Income Tax Office, Raypura Ram Villash Nagar, Old Gt Road, Near Prakash Ho Shahpur, Aurangabad, Vs. Petrol Pump, Sasaram, Aurangabad, Bihar-824101 Bihar-82115 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Boqpd5037M Assessee By : Shri G.P. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, DR
Section 250(6)

point of determination and his decision thereon and the reasons for taking the said decision as mandated by the provision of section 250(6) of the Act which apparently has not been done by the appellate authority. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem

Society for Advancement of Village Economy, Gaya vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna

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

ITA 14/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)Section 28

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Parvatbhai Baria, Gujarat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Godhra, Gujarat

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

ITA 1583/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1583/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Parvatbhai Baria, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs. 818, Vavdi Gam, Ward-1, Dahod Highway, Godhra. Vavdi Buzurg, Panchmahal-389001. Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri Abbas Gulamhusianwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 45

appeals and Statement of Facts submitted by the appellant. 4. That the learned CIT(A) failed to discharge the appellate duty vested under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by not passing a reasoned and speaking order dealing with each of the grounds and contentions raised, thereby

National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5987/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnational Institute Of Construction Management & Research, Walchand Centre, Walchand Terraces, Tardeo Road, Ac Market ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400034 Pan : Aaatn1348J V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 2, ……………… Respondent Cumbala Hill, Telephone Exchange, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xii)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution when a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 250(6) and Section 250(4), the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. That ... compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. In CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held

Nandkumar Baban Saste, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 99/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

order cannot be termed as a speaking order which is required to be passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) has also not dealt with merits of the case regarding ITA.No.99/PUN./ 2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) transaction reported

Rajendra Subhash Nagargoje, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli

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

ITA 2520/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2520/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Subhash Nagargoje, Ito, Ward-1, Sangli At Po Bedag, Tal-Miraj, Sangli- 416421 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Afspn4271K अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Deepa Khare Department By: Shri Manoj Tripathi-Addl. Cit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10-12-2025

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

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

Shri. Kaushal Kumar Parmar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 1806/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Dhoot, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 45

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Javeed Khan Ahemad Khan, Yawal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2738/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to be decided in accordance with law as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to file additional documents. If needed

Gajanana Shamanna Talageri, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gadag

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

ITA 1973/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250(6)

same were not considered. We find that the learned CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order as required under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said section mandates that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons