“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)

Ganpatlal Agarwal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 1128/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Ganpatlal Agarwal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

ITA 1127/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ganpatlal Agarwal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

ITA 1126/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

Ganpatlal Agarwal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 1125/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Rajrani Singhal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

ITA 1124/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

Rajrani Singhal, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

ITA 1123/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)\rFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)\r

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\r IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR\r डा० एस

Rajrani Singhal, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

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

ITA 1122/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Rajrani Singhal, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

ITA 1120/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 10Section 127Section 132Section 153A

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

action of the CIT(A) to call for the remand report was within the powers vested in the CIT(A) in terms of Section 250(4)/251 of the Act and in line with the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [the ‘IT Rules

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

Shyam Sunder Mittal, Late Shri Shyam Sunder Mittal, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1145/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 69C

natural justice and accordingly it is liable to the cancelled. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to comply with the provisions of section 250(4) of the LT. Act which says that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further

ITO Ward 1, Sangli vs. Balu Musa Dange, Sangli

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

ITA 930/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.930/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Balu Musa Dange, Ward-I, Sangli. S I Dsp Office Vishrambag, Sangli. Maharashtra – 416415. Pan: Ancpd1861F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 07.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “(I) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That If The Similar Addition Is Made In The Case Of Assessee’S Wife, The Addition In Case Of Assessee Shall Become Protective. (Ii) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deciding The Issue On The Basis Of Statement Of Fact, As The Assessee Did Neither Attend Before The Ao Nor Before The Cit(A).

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)

ld.CIT(A). However, in this case, ld.CIT(A)’s order is dated 07.03.2024. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable to present appeal. Section 250(4) of the Act gives specific power to ld.CIT(A) to make any 4 further enquiry or direct the Assessing Officer to make any enquiry ... 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

Lohiya Developers, Parli District Beed vs. ITO Ward -1 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1425/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 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. 4 Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating

Ravindra Khandelwal, Akola vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Akola, Akola

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

ITA 403/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 36Section 68Section 69A

should have admitted the additional evidences. We also find that the learned CIT(A) did not embark upon any enquiry under section 250(4) of the Act. Moreover, the casual way of dismissing the appeal of the assessee is nothing but a travesty of justice. Although, the learned Departmental Representative

Ganesh Vishnu Harde, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1369/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1367, 1368 & 1369/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ganesh Vishnu Harde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, At Post Sonai, Newasa Dist, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Ahmednagar – 414105. Pan: Ahgph2574P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15, A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17; All Dated 23.04.2024. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

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

Ganesh Vishnu Harde, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-2 Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1368/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Ganesh Vishnu Harde, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1367/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Tny Holidays Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2884/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234Section 234A

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

Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(4) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1872/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1871 & 1872/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil V The Income Tax Officer, Mills Limited, S Ward-2(4), Pune. 43, Nav Maharashtra House, Near Shaniwar Wada, Shaniwar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaacn9941J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune Dated 27.07.2022 & 20.11.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 250(6)Section 92B