“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)

Shri Narendra Kumar Bhojwani, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

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

ITA 488/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.488/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Narendra Kumar Bhojwani C/O. Bhojwani Medical Stores, Hatri Bazar, Sadar Ward, Bhatapara-493 118 (C.G.) Pan: Adepb7523J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 5

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.” 10. Respectfully following the aforesaid orders, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals ... shall duly comply with the hearing notices from the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Ld.CIT(Appeal)/NFAC shall accordingly pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act within three months from receipt of this order. 11. As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised

Rajendra Kumar Sapre, Bilaspur vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 482/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.482/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Sapre, Ward No.7, Shiwa Chowk, Post-Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Cqips0419R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

denovo adjudication while condoning the delay and come up with a speaking order in terms with Section 249(3) r.w. provisos r.w Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 5. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5 Rajendra Kumar

Starpoint Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 340/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

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

Ankit Kumar Singhania, Shakti vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 477/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.477/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ankit Kumar Singhania, Village Post-Baradwar Basti, Ward No.10, Dharamshal Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa-495 687 Pan: Bypps9579C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Ballarpur ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 250

Deepak Chhabra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Delhi

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

ITA 979/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 254Section 271ASection 69A

reduce the penalty. On cumulative consideration 6 Deepak Chhabra, Delhi 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 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that

Shiva Corporation (India) Limited, Jaipur vs. Dy. CIT, CC-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1219/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)

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 prima facie an information is necessary to examine the claim of the assessee. Similarly, the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court

India Construction, Diamond Harbour vs. ITO, Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2592/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 906/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 905/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 783/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

Krishnamurthy Rangappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1308/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19 Krishnamurthy Rangappa, Income Tax Officer, 2, Manjunatha Nilaya, Ward-4(1)(1), Little Flower Hospital, R.M. Nagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore-560016. Pan No : Agppr2719C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Pranav Krishna – Advocate Respondent By : Sri Balusamy N - Jcit Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Krishnamurthy Rangappa Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2018-19 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 09/04/2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri Pranav Krishna – AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N - JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

Mishika Kamlesh Lulla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3826/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmishika Kamlesh Lulla, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. 1602, Harihar बनाम 3(2), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Building, Madhav Sankalp, Kalyan – Murbad Road, Khadakpada, Kalyan – Syndicate, Kalyan – 421 301, 421301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Accpl3579M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talreja, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as per section 250(4) of the Act. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have

Bharatkumar Rajashree, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1279/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Travenza Holidays, No. Ward-7(2)(1), 180/A, 16Th Main 4Th ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru. Jayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru-560041. Pan No : Auopr4145D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2016-17 On 05/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 22/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Argumentative In Nature & Mainly They Revolve Around The Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 33,45,000/- (Being 1/3Rd Of The Entire Amount For Being Joint Holder

For Appellant: Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Shri Adil Khurshid Bhat, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 581/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principle of natural justice. 3. That In view of the section 250(4) and 250(5) of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) has acted in contravention of the law while dismissing the case for non-prosecution, without

Sh Adil Khurshid Bhat, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 580/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

Shri Adil Khurshid Bhat, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 579/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

Yasmeen Shaikh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1264/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Ward-5(3)(5), Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bellandur, Vs. Bengaluru-560103. Pan No : Aovps3088K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 25/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below, Insofar As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Disposing Off The Appeal Holding That The Appellant Has Not Complied

For Appellant: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

Malti Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmalti Agarwal, B 13B Girdhar Colony, Murlipura Thana Road, Jaipur 302 039 Pan No.: Aampa 1590K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Dheeraj Borad, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Jcit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 154Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

levying penalty of Rs. 1,82,310/- against the appellant, the Ld. CIT (A) did not make any inquiry in compliance to section 250(4) of the IT Act and accordingly the impugned order passed by him is unjustified and liable to be cancelled. 5. That before levying/sustaining the penalty

Devngi Jewellwers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 672/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 109 -110, Shreyas Diamond Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd3227A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5874/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

either to enhance or to reduce the penalty. On cumulative consideration of 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 251(2) of the Act, it is concluded that