← All Phrases

“Section 250(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 250Section 250(4)1,077 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 250(4) is Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (322 ITR 283), cited in 1,283 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 250(4)

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,283
citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

Pr. CIT v. Totagars
395 ITR 611 · 2017 · High Court
1,074
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from surplus deposits or investments held with a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
431 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
999
citing judgments

Section 80P(4) serves as a proviso to Section 80P(1) and (2), excluding only cooperative banks that are cooperative societies and possess an RBI license for banking business. Its purpose is to exclude cooperative banks operating like commercial banks that lend money to the public.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

State Bank Of India v. CIT
389 ITR 578 · 2016 · High Court
817
citing judgments

Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court
762
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.
156 ITR 11 · 1985 · High Court
541
citing judgments

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court
524
citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

Judgments citing Section 250(4)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. M/S Ace Residency Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3493/DEL/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

from Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd.u/s 250(4) 1)The Ld. CIT(A), while deleting the addition, has conducted an independent enquiry under section 250(4) of the Act from Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. The reply received from Hallow Securities was duly forwarded to the Assessing Officer for comments. Hence ... proceedings were pending against them. During the enquiry, M/s Hallow Securities furnished only the documents called for under section 250(4). This issue has been addressed by the CIT(A) in the order u/s 250(6) in the case of M/s Allure Developers

Naresh Kumar Agrawal, Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 639/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.639/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Naresh Kumar Agrawal, C/O Prachi Milling Industries, Sandhi Para, Ratanpur, Bilaspur 495442, Chhattisgarh, Pan: Ahqpa8734J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR
Section 250

Appeals) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months from receipt of this order.” 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision on the same parity of reasoning and as per similar ... office of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and represent his matter on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) /NFAC shall accordingly pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 6. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Amrit Lal Khairwar, Champa, Chhattisgarh vs. Income-Tax Officer Janjgir-Champa, Champa

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

ITA 503/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.503/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amrit Lal Khairwar, Indira Nagar, Behind Govt, City Hospital, Janjgir, Khadipadi Para, Janjgir, Champa, 495668, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Dudpk4562H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR

Appeals) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months from receipt of this order.” 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision on the same parity of reasoning and as per similar ... office of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and represent his matter on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) /NFAC shall accordingly pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 7. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Santosh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

agreement with 'A' Ltd. was already on the file of the AO. 14. The CIT A Faceless erred in law in not appreciating Section 250(4) gives wide discretion to the CIT(A) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or to direct the AO, to make further ... reject the technical objection of the revenue and held that CIT(A) could consider the necessary evidence in exercise of his powers under section 250(4) if ITA No.400/LKW/2025 Page 12 of 26 prima facie an information is necessary to examine the claim of the assessee. 15. That the Appellate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur vs. Tirupati Balaji Foods Private Limited, Raipur

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

ITA 657/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.657/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

Impex (India) Ltd. (supra) vis-a-vis the facts of the case of the assesse and pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside accordingly. 11. As per the above terms grounds

Sunil Madhyani, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 586/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.586/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Madhyani Ward No.24, Behind Hotel Malwa Durg (C.G.)- 491 001 Pan: Apipm9839G

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

considered view that in the interest of justice and fairness, all these additional evidences should have to be considered in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. We further direct that ground verification by calling for a remand report from

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Saligram Tripathi, Durg

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

ITA 582/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.582/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 69

report from the A.O on the documents filed before it. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 7 DCIT-1(1), Bhilai Vs. Saligram Tripathi Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall afford reasonable opportunity

Shahbaz Mohammed Shafeeque, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2291/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2291/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shahbaz Mohammed V The Income Tax Officer, Shafeeque, S. Ward-1, Malegaon. House No.904, Lane No.2, Malegaon City S.O., Malegaon, Nashik, Malegaon – 423203. Maharashtra. Pan: Cfppm6844A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to 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

Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2288/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2288/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, V The Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Shirur Kasar, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Shirur So., Beed, Beed – 413249. Pan: Bytpk1339N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh D.Khivansara Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 17.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On Facts & In Law, The Ex-Parte Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals, Nfac Is Opposed To Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Accordingly The Impugned Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. 5 ITA No.2288/PUN/2025 [A] Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Sanjay Kumar Punjabi, Raipur

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

ITA 565/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.565/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar PunjabiFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80G

Appeals) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months from receipt of this order.” 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision on the same parity of reasoning and as per similar ... matter on merits. 8 Income Tax Officer Vs. Sanjay Kumar Punjabi The Ld.CIT(Appeal) /NFAC shall accordingly pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 7. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Tikamchand Sahu, Ainthapali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.494/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2022-23 Tikamchand Sahu, Ainthapali Imfl Off Shop, Sambalpur, Odisha, 768004 Pan: Hejps3794R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

addition. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC needs to provide independent application of mind and come out with a speaking order in terms of section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The order, therefore, is not in terms with the principles of substantive justice, which needs to be applied

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Goenka Rockwool India Private Limited, Raipur

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

ITA 453/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.453/Rpr/2025 Co No. 18/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Rules, 1962. We also note that the findings in absence of such remand report is also not in terms with Section 250 (4) & (6) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is directed to comply with the provisions of the Act while complying with the principles of natural justice

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

been raised by the assessee before him/her. 10. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section

M/S R D Construction, Bhilai vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 640/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.640/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. R D Construction Shikshit Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Bhilai Marshalling Yard, Charoda, Bhilai-490 025 (C.G.) Pan: Aajfr3698E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)

/NFAC on the quantum issue, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC restricted the disallowance to 20% again on ad-hoc basis without compliance to Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act and resultantly, for such sustainment of 20% disallowance, penalty was levied on the assessee. That against the penalty order when ... before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the said authority while disposing the appeal of the assessee had not followed again the mandate of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act and it had simply upheld the penalty order of the A.O without independent application of mind or reasoning

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, C.R. Building vs. Aircom International India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3096/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. M/S Aircom International India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), M-12, Balrama House, New Delhi. Karampura Complex, Opp. Milan Cinema, Karam Pura West Delhi Delhi – 110 015. Pan: Aadca0915A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate; Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate; & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Nirma Credit & Capital Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 101/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Ld. Cit (A) Was Against Charging Interest U/S 234C Of I.T. Act For Rs.7,93,284/-On Capital Gain Arose On 30-03-2023. Hence Interest U/S 234 C Cannot Be Charged Up To 15-03-2023. 3) Your Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Alter, Amend All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal As May Be Advised From Time To Time.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 250(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil

Kiran Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Dhamtari

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 655/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to 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

14 Reels Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for non-

ITA 969/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018

For Appellant: Mrs. K Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

14 Reels Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 617/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018 14 Reels The Dcit, Central Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 033. Pin – 500 004. Pan Aaaaz2224L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा /Assessee By : Mrs. K Prabhabati, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Hyderabad- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 08.02.2025 & 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018, Respectively.

For Appellant: Mrs. K Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 250

thinks fit or direct the assessing officer to 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 Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai vs. Nikhil Mittal, Bhilai

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

ITA 656/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.656/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 250(4)

Counsel for the assessee also conceded that since the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has not followed the mandate of the Act i.e. Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act and has not given his findings on merits on issues which emanates from the assessment order, therefore, the matter ... establish the genuineness of the purchases claimed to be have been made from the said entity. That as per the mandate of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC should have conducted inquiry on this aspect and should have given his findings on the issue