← 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)

Jai Shivrai Pratishthan, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1673/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1673/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Kishor B. Phadke
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

/NFAC. Needless to mention here that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as contemplated in 5 section 250(6) of the Act. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the instant appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 6

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Pune vs. Dharamveer Sambhaji Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Narayan Gaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 1639/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1639/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

Income Tax Rules, 1962 and after considering the remand report, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall decide in accordance with law as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. All the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the instant appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Only B2B Ites Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1197/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1197/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Abhay A. Avchat
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

/NFAC shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and adjudicate the issues in the manner as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act and pass a speaking order. Thus, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result

Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tenali

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश

Sadique Shaikhu Gulamdastagir Shaikh, Raviwar Peth vs. Addl/JCIT, A

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

ITA 1544/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 250(6)

issues raised by the assessee in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing should be granted to the assessee for making submissions. Finding

Sau. Anandibai Hirachand Shah Phaltankar Trust, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Exemption Ward1(1), Income Tax Officer, Pune, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1540/PUN/2025[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1540/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sau. Anandibai Hirachand Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Shah Phaltankar Trust, Ward-1, Pune. Sinhgad Road, Manikbaug, Anandnagar, Pune- 411051. Pan : Aaits8972K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 19.06.2025 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13. 2. When The Case Called For None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, On Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal & The Impugned Order, I Note That There Is Delay Of 742 Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was On Account Of Covid-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 144Section 250(6)

case raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal mentioned in Form No.35 and decide in accordance with law as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that 3 proper opportunity of hearing should be granted to the assessee. Grounds of appeal raised

Vishnu Vardhan Cheruvu, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 1522/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1522/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishnu Vardhan Cheruvu, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. 308, A Block, Sri Krupa Towers, Sringeri Colony Street N1, Mohannagar, Kothaper, Hyderabad- 500035. Pan : Ajfpc8382H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 17.04.2025 Relevant To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Did Not Condone The Delay Of 333 Days & Also Did Not Provide An Opportunity To Provide The Reasons For Delay. It Is Also Submitted That The Delay Was On Account Of Tax Consultant Who Is Looking After The Taxation Work. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection If The Delay Is Condoned & Matter Is Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 250(6)

raised by the assessee in the instant appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for necessary adjudication as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Finding

Span Construction, Pune vs. I.T.O Wrd-3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1346/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Span Construction, V The Income Tax Officer, H1, Flat No.203, S. Ward-3(3), Pune. S.No.123/A/1/1, Vanraji Heights, Rambaug Colony, Near Mit College, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaefs2589J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.03.2025 For A.Y.2017-18, Emanating From The Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Read With

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

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

Mobite Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward, 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 1258/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1258/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mobite Technologies Private V The Income Tax Officer, Limited, S. Ward-7(1), Pune. A-701, Victoria Garden, Nagar Road, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411006. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcm7197J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shilpa Nc – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-10, Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 12.02.2025 For A.Y.2021-22, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ao Cpc Has Erred In Rejecting Concessional Rate Of Income Tax Of 22% Adopted By Assessee For Calculation Of Tax Liability As Per Itr U/S 115Baa & The Ld. Cit A Erred In Confirming The Same

Section 115Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

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

Vikas Jain HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-66(7), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2610/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2610/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Vikas Jain Huf, Vs Cit/Income Tax Officer, 108-109, Parmesh Business Centre- Ward-66(7), 1, Plot No. 20, Community Centre, New Delhi-110002 Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihv6645J Assessee By: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073132063(1) Dated 11.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, 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

Vikas Jain HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-66(7), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2609/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2609/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Vikas Jain Huf, Vs Cit(A)/Income Tax Officer, 108-109, Parmesh Business Centre- Ward-66(7), 1, Plot No. 20, Community Centre, New Delhi-110002 Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihv6645J Assessee By: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073132558(1) Dated 11.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

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

Bharitya Khadi Gramoudhyog Pratishthan, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT(Exemption), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2562/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2562/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Bhartiya Khadi Gramoudhyog Vs Dcit(Exemption), Pratishthan, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Ghaziabad, 75, Navyug Market, 1St Floor, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Ghaziabad-201001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb1079P Assessee By: Sh. Vaibhav Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057992727(1) Dated 16.11.2023, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, 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

Indu Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Noida vs. Assessing Officer, Noida

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2547/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2547/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Indu Hospital & Research Centre Vs Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., A-98-A, Sector-34, Circle-5(1)(1), Noida, U. P. -201301 Noida, U. P.-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci9041C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, 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

Suman Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 48(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2546/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2546/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Suman Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, 192, Agcr Enclave, 1St Floor, Ward-48(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarps0324E Assessee By: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073423168(1) Dated 18.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 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

Surender Singh Chauhan, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2545/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2545/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Surender Singh Chauhan, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village-Karbera, Mohan Nagar, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad-201007 Ghaziabad-201001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adypc6319D Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, 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

Sandeep Verma, Bw-D vs. Income Tax Officer (Ward 34(2)), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2293/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2293/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sandeep Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Bw-89D, Shalimar Bagh, Ward-34(2), New Delhi-131001 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppv6480R Assessee By: Sh. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073296488(1) Dated 14.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 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

Kshipra Dhawan, Saharanpur vs. DCIT Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

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

ITA 171/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

audit report under section 44AB. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion

Kshipra Dhawan, Saharanpur vs. DCIT Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

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

ITA 170/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

audit report under section 44AB. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion

Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Santha Myd, Rajgarh, Dhar vs. The ITO, Dhar

ITA 786/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 253Section 37Section 38(2)Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 999/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.999/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna Brahman Galli, Nandi Mandir, Kadrabad, Jalna- 431203 Maharashtra Pan-Anrpn9966G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 208Section 234Section 234ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr