← 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)

Chandrakant Vaijanathappa Khanapure, Nanded vs. ITO Ward 1 Nanded, Nanded

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

ITA 779/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.779/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chandrakant Vaijanathappa V The Income Tax Officer, Khanapure, S Ward-1, Nanded. 34 Deep Nagar, Near Bsnl Office, Nanded – 431601. Maharashtra. Pan: Aropk0786G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025

Section 142Section 144Section 250Section 69A

direct the ITA No.779/PUN/2025 [A] 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

Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pmt Building, Swargate, Pune

ITA 1137/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, 3 Lt Col Tarapore Road, Camp, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaats4768F Appellant/ Assessee V The Dy.Commissioner Of S. Income Tax Exemption, Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.02.2025 For A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 18.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(10)(c)

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

Subedar Pathak, Gorakhpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 338/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.338/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Subedar Pathak Devnagari, Near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Almunium Factory Road, Gorakhpur (U.P)-273- 001 Pan: Apspp4726M ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 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.” 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, we are providing one final opportunity to the assessee

Maa Harsidhhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 167/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.167/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Private Limited H No. Peepal 1/83, Housing Board Colony, Boriyakala, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aagcm7052H

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor 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.” 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, we 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. 7. As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Sunil Kumar Rohda, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 119/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sunil Kumar Rohda Vasnmal Rohda Building, Main Road, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 114 Pan: Acmpr7739P

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor 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.” 7. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals ... before the first appellate authority to substantiate his claim. The Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC shall accordingly pass order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 8. As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1038/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1037/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, बनाम / Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. ITO, Daman

ITA 1036/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Vs. Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For Different Years Are As Under:

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1035/SRT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Vs. Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Rajkumar Thadwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Raipur

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

ITA 257/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.257/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajkumar Thadwani 1-Raju Krishi Kendra, Amardeep Talkies Road, Banstal, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt0267A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, 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.” 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, 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. 9. As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Phoola Rani Chadha, New Delhi

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

ITA 3480/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

submitted by the assessee. Hence, the ground referred violation of Rule 46A is rendered infructous. The action of CIT(A) is circumscribed under Section 250(4) of I.T. Act, 1961 and no irregularity is visible. 7. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. “(1) That the order dated 27/05/2024 passed

Phoola Rani Chadha, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 30(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3469/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

submitted by the assessee. Hence, the ground referred violation of Rule 46A is rendered infructous. The action of CIT(A) is circumscribed under Section 250(4) of I.T. Act, 1961 and no irregularity is visible. 7. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. “(1) That the order dated 27/05/2024 passed

Veer Project, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur

ITA 332/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 332/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respectfully following the decision in the case

Arihant Agencies, Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1 Raipur, Central Circle Raipur

ITA 326/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No:326/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 69

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. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respectfully following the decision in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shree Kumar Singh Bhadoriya, Dantewada

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

ITA 154/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.154/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

fact are substantial amount of deposits. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had failed to make any enquiry nor had followed the mandate of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Also, there has not been any independent application of mind or any examination of facts conducted ... principles of natural justice with a clear direction that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act after conducting necessary verification of facts regarding source of entire cash deposits as emanated in the assessment order. We order accordingly

DCIT, CC-4, New Delhi vs. Mg Housing Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2037/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(a)Section 150Section 68

called for or directed the production of the above documents suo-moto for deciding the issue by virtue of his coterminous power under section 250(4) of the Act. There is no evidence to say that the documents were filed at the behest of the CIT(A). We find that ... such evidence/documents, the same shall not be out of purview of Rule 46A. 15. It would be apposite to reproduce the provisions of section 250(4) and Rule 46A: Page 10 of 19 [A.Y. 2015-16] Dy. CIT Vs. MG Housing Pvt Ltd “250 (4) The Appellate Assistant Commissioner

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

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

ITA 248/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without dealing the same on merits in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) . For the sake of clarity, the Paras 3, 4.2 & 5 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals ... case. The power of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC being co-terminus with that of the A.O and as per mandate of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC ought to have conducted independent enquiry and verification of facts in this case as per facts

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

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

ITA 247/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without dealing the same on merits in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) . For the sake of clarity, the Paras 3, 4.2 & 5 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals ... case. The power of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC being co-terminus with that of the A.O and as per mandate of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC ought to have conducted independent enquiry and verification of facts in this case as per facts

Birla Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle (4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3906/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbirla Infrastructure Limited Dcit Central Circle 4(1), 5Th Floor, Industry House, 159, 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Churchgate Reclamation, Vs. Building Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 Pan: Aabcb20181Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 276C

Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to the Commissioner (Appeals).1 39. The further inquiry envisaged under Section 250(4) quoted above is generally by calling what is known as "remand report". The purpose of this enabling clause is essentially to ensure that ... appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or causing to be made a "further inquiry" in exercise of the power under Section 250(4). This Birla Infrastructure Limited approach not having been adopted, the impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved or upheld

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

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

ITA 249/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.249/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 249(3)Section 5

circumstances in this case. I am of the view that the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is not in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Admittedly, there has been delay of 405 days in filing appeal before ... while complying with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order on merits in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act. At the same time, the assessee is directed to comply all the hearing notices as and when would