“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)

Tejas Arvindkumar Desai, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 516/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Tejas Arvindkumar Desai Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 202/302, Guru Pushya Ward-1(3)(3), Surat, Income Tax Vs. Apartment, Maskati Plot, Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Parle Point, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipn 4702 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

proper adjudication done by the NFAC nor any enquiry conducted nor any report was called. The order is not in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act, since the Appellate Authority has to exercise its jurisdiction and adjudicate any matter on merits as held in the following judicial ... Taxman 17 (Madras) 12. The legal reasoning given in the abovementioned judicial pronouncements signifies the fact that legislation has mandated in terms with section 250(4) & (6) that Id CIT(A) shall conduct independent enquiry into the merits of the matter, if required call for a report from the Assessing

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charge of ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

Varsha Jain, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 240/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 249

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 DIN: 15-18 ITBA/NFAC/F/APL 1/2024-25/1066426389(1) Date: 05.07.2024 8. Request to allow additional evidence underunder section 250(4)of 19-25 the LT.Act rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 vide ack No. 854280181220724 dated 22.7.2024 9. Notice under section 250 ... ITBA/NFAC/F/APL 1/2024-25/1066972763(1) Date: 24.07.2024 10. Submission of Paper book for request to allow additional evidence 30-37 underunder section 250(4) of the I.T.Act/rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 vide ack No. 355466821060824 dated 06.08.2024 11. Notice under section 250 of the Income

Ratilal Karmshi Patel, Satara vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

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

ITA 1399/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1399/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ratilal Karmshi Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, D-70, Midc, Taswade, S. Ward-1, Satara. Umbraj, Taluka Karad, District Satara – 415109. Maharashtra. Pan: Abppp6230R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramchandran – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 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 10.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

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

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 668/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Vijay Kumar Chhattani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 120/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vijay Kumar Chhattani, S.S.D. Agro Tech Building, Village Tulsi, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Afapc4410R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133A

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 aforestated judgment and as per the directions in the foregoing paragraphs

Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 118/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor 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.” 11. Respectfully following the aforestated judgment and as per the directions in the foregoing paragraphs

Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 117/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor 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.” 11. Respectfully following the aforestated judgment and as per the directions in the foregoing paragraphs

Subhash Murarka, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 176/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subhash Murarka C-1/85/186-R7, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aeqpm4578P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)

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.” 15. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, we set-aside the order

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

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

Soham Nitinbhai Bhadiyadra, Botad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 127/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 250(4)Section 45ASection 69A

attached here with this submission in Annexure A The Ld CIT(A) without calling for a remand report or seeking clarification under section 250(4), erroneously upheld the addition stating that no proof was furnished, despite having the records before him. Further in CIT (appeal) order in Para

Bir Babu Pandey, Gopalganj vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Siwan

ITA 223/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 40Section 69A

Page 2 I.T.A. No.: 223/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bir Babu Pandey. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the

M/S. Positive Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2492/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. George Mathan & Sh. Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Ambikapur, Surajpur vs. Income Tax Offficer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Ambikarpur

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

ITA 132/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Patel, Sr.-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH :: RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 94/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH :: RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 93/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH :: RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai vs. Vijaya Deshlahra, Indore

In the result, ITA No. 92/RPR/2025 & C

ITA 92/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH :: RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT

Sharad Goel, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

ITA 310/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 310/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

this stage for the assessee, in absence of the necessary actions to be taken by the Ld. JCIT(A) under the provisions of section 250(4) & (6) to interpret and infer upon the factual aspect of the case, so as to arrive at the rational findings, the applicability of jurisprudence ... 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 9 Sharad Goel