← 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)

ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kobelco Cranes India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5691/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 5686/Del/2024: Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 5687/Del/2024: Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 5688/Del/2024: Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 5689/Del/2024: Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 5690/Del/2024: Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 5691/Del/2024: Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mr. Harish Chaudhary, Vs Dcit, 70, Village Pavi Sadakpur, Loni Central Circle, Dehat, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201102 Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpc4491D Assessee By: Sh. Sameer Kapoor, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

such an instance 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

Bethel Christian Fellowship Association, Koppal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 2186/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Veeranna M Murgod, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 69A

issued by the AO to assume jurisdiction. As Bethel Christian Fellowship Association, Koppal Page 7 of 8 per the provision contained in section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

M/S. Nandi Engineering Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1942/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri H. Siva Prasaad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 68

found that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has also not adjudicated the issues on merits. As per the provision contained in section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination

Chandra Prakash Jain, Jaipur vs. Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld
Section 10(38)Section 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 69C

witnesses or access the underlying evidence. The additions were based on unverified third-party statements and an Investigation Wing report, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates proper reasoning and a fair opportunity to challenge evidence. Judicial precedents confirm that denying cross-examination renders

Ashwin Kumar Kilambi Venkata, Secunderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 216/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Babu, DR
Section 250(6)

learned AR is that though the learned CIT(A) could have passed the ex-parte orders, the requirement of law under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is that the learned CIT(A) shall advert to the points for determining the decision thereon ... order clearly shows that there is paucity of reasoning for supporting the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer. Mandate of law under section 250(6) of the Act is that appellate commissioner shall dispose of appeals by order in writing, stating the points for determination, the reason thereon

Kapil Dev Nikhanj, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 52(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1770/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1770/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Krishan Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, R/O Door No. 467A, Ward No. 18, Ward-2, New Tara Nagar, Sonepat, Sonepat, Haryana Haryana-132001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acypv9888K Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, 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

M/S. Nanak Chand Associates, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1419/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Cheryl Savia Indira Lobo, Calangute vs. ACIT, C-1(1), Panaji

ITA 275/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 275/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Cheryl Savia Indira Lobo H.No. E-100, Pobha Vado, Calangute, Bardez, North Goa, Goa Pan : Acbpl9307J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinod Totekar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064290058(1) Dt. 23/04/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Vinod Totekar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 54E

NFAC is required to state point of determination, decision thereon and reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. A plain reading of above section reveals that, it was incumbent upon Ld. NFAC to make necessary enquiries before passing an order and while doing so it necessitates

Ecoslag Cements and Additives Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Panaji

ITA 269/PAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 269/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ecoslag Cements & Additives Pvt. Ltd. D.No. V5-1-T-49/12, Ramakrishna Shopping Compound, Mahesh Pu College Road, Bengaluru Pan : Aacce2303F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr V Sriram Rao [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068333198(1) Dt. 04/09/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 30/08/2022 Passed U/S 271C Of The Act By The Jt. Cit, Panaji [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr V Sriram Rao [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 246ASection 249Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271C

deal therewith de-novo on merits in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open

Bhavan Ravat, Raebareli vs. Assessing Authority NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 8/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavan Ravat Assessing Authority V. Vill. Rampur Sudauli, Nfac Raebareli-229301. Delhi Pan:Ajwpr1755Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 5

rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We are of the considered opinion, in view of provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that learned CIT(A) had statutory duty to pass speaking order on merits of the various grounds of appeal

Hemlata Jain, Bhopal, M.P vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 607/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

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

Ravi Kant Sharma, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (3), Bareilly

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

ITA 62/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Kant Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 45, Athayen Faridpur Bareilly Athana Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bcfps0514M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

order after taking into consideration the ITA No.62/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 8 material and information available on record as per provisions contained in section 250(6) of the Act. 2. BECAUSE without prejudice to the grounds hereinfore, no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued

Bhimashankar Ssk Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT- Circle-8, Pune

ITA 1147/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1147/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13 Bhimashankar Ssk Ltd., V The Acit, A/P. Pargaon, Tal.Ambegaon, S Circle-8, Pune. Dist-Pune – 412406. Pan: Aaaab0949G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavle – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned Nfac –Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Delhi, Has Erred In Disallowing & Adding Back An Amount Of Rs.42,23,17,760/- On Account F Excess Cane Price Paid Farmers.

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(19)Section 250Section 80ISection 80P(2)(d)

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

Veena Khindri, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

ITA 443/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Rahul Khindri, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Amritsar

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 37/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Sachin Pandurang Alhat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Pune

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

ITA 8/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.8/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Pandurang Alhat, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.202, Bld No.P6, A S Ward-10(2), Pune. Wing, Gandarwanagari, Pune – 412501. Pan:Ahepa6396E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak & Mrs. Arrchena Sheety Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 05.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Appellant Has Not Been Duly Represented By His Iip In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & Have Again Not Been Duly

Section 148Section 250

inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. ITA No.8/PUN/2025 [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

Shrirang Govind Phadtare, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 18/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.18/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

liberty to file any evidence as he deems expedient and ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass the order interms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to provide correct email id to the department

Shri Jitendrasinh Bharatsinh Chauhan, Silvassa vs. ITO, Ward-Silvassa, Silvassa

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

ITA 969/SRT/2024[2018-19`]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 14ASection 250(6)Section 68

facts to dismiss appellant's appeal ex parte and that too without going into merits of the case as per the mandate of Section 250(6) the LT. Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to confirm A.O.’s addition

Jayendrasinh Bhikhubhai Solanki, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer- Silvassa, Silvassa

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

ITA 1244/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jidicial Member & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Jayendrasinh Bhikhubhai Solanki बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, 37/3, Trimurti Bhavan, High School Vs. Income Tax Office, Vee Bee Mall, Faliya, Naroli, Silvassa-396 230 Near Civil Court, Tokarkhada, Silvassa -396 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Angps 4011 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

250(6) of the Act. We find that impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is clearly violative of the express provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which provides that the appellate orders of the Ld.CIT(A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision

Devaraaya Atluri, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 64/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.64/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Devaraya Atluri Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward-2(1) [Pan : Aqzpa6317M] Vijayawada अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with. 3. Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders ... such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. 5. 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