← 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)

Sonali Harshal Gavandalkar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 814/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) SR. D.R
Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (Appeals), has erred in completing the appeal proceedings without waiting for the Remand Report under section 250(4) as called for from the Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre

Sudhir Yashwant Kadam, Ratnagiri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

ITA 767/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sudhir Yashwant Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, H.No.127, Bahutule Wadi, S Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Mavlange, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra – 415616. Pan: Abfpk2131A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 16.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ito Of Rs.13,47,713/- Representing The Total Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account, Ignoring Submission Of The Appellant That: A. The Source Of The Cash Deposit Being Out Of His Business Turnover No Addition Is Sudhir Yashwant Kadam [A]

Section 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

Sujata Suresh Nikam, Kalamboli Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -5 Panvel, Panvel

ITA 474/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujata Suresh Nikam, V The Income Tax Officer, Kl 4/10/3, Sector 4E, S Ward-5, Panvel. Kalamboli, Maharashtra – 410218. Pan: Abspn5521A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Kadrekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) – Nfac Has Erred In Confirming Order Imposing Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Failed To Consider The Sujata Suresh Nikam [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271B

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

Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi, Parbhani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Parbhani

ITA 396/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shaikh Ayub Shaikh Mahebub V The Income Tax Officer, Qureshi, S Ward, Parbhani. Khureshi Traders, Khureshi Mohala, Purna, Parbhani, Maharashtra – 431511. Pan: Bkjpk1916R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. M.N.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing Appellant’S Appeal Alleging ‘Unexplained Cash Deposit In The Bank Account' In Para 5.2. Appellant Prays For Allowing Assessee'S Appeal Cancelling Addition Made By Assessing Officer As Issue Before Cit[A] Is Income Assessed Estimating Profit. Shaik Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi [A]

Section 234Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

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

Khengarsinh Jadavbhai Gohel, Petlad vs. ITO Petlad, Petlad

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

ITA 579/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

caused enquiries to be made by the AO and submit remand report to him to enable ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal(Section 250(4). There are other vast powers vested under the 1961 Act with ld.Addl/JCIT(A). It is equally true that the assessee also did not complied

Bharatkumar Bhikhabhai Chavda, Hariyala Kheda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nadiad

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

ITA 797/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad In Ita No. 797/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1059995984(1) Dated 22-01-2024 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi , Which Appeal In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 07-11-2019 Passed By The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

caused enquiries to be made by the AO and submit remand report to him to enable ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal(Section 250(4). There are other vast powers vested under the 1961 Act with ld. CIT(A). It is equally true that the assessee also

Santosh Krushna Ghule, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Satara

ITA 461/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.461/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Krushna Ghule, V The Income Tax Officer, 165/9, Sahu Nagar, Godolo, S Ward-5, Satara. Satara – 415001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ayopg3325J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Granting Him Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & The Impugned Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Ao Had Assessed An Amount Of Rs.53,24,743/- As Long Term Capital Gains Without Santosh Krushna Ghule [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 45Section 54F

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

Srinivasa Rao Sadam, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 190/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.190/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Srinivas Rao Sadam Vs. Income Tax Officer 78-5-39, Kunda Vari Ward-3(5) Kandrikapadamara Bazar Vijayawada Zp High School Road Vijayawada [Pan : Bhqps9041B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री

Neelam Sachin Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 768/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2

further inquiries as he thinks and ld. CIT(A) may direct AO to make further inquiries and report the same to CIT(A) [Section 250(4)]. The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass order in compliance with the provisions of section 250

Neelam Sachin Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 767/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2

further inquiries as he thinks and ld. CIT(A) may direct AO to make further inquiries and report the same to CIT(A) [Section 250(4)]. The ld. CIT(A) is required and obligated to pass order in compliance with the provisions of section 250

Mukesh Lahu Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune

ITA 542/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.542/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mukesh Lalu Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 92, Anand Park, It Road S Ward-2(1), Pune. Aundh, Pune – 411007. Pan: Afepj4215K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Presumptive Turnover & Percentage Of Profit Respectively @ Rs.6,98,20,894/- & 8% I.E. Rs.55,85,672/-

Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

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

Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

ITA 526/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.526/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Accuscan Daignostic Service V The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, S Ward-1(1), Pune. 304, Rajat Apartmens, North Main Road, Lane-06, Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabca4647D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of Cit(A), Nfac Dated 19.01.2024 In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play. 2. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt. Ltd., [A]

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

Service Pvt. Ltd., [A] 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

Infotek Netalia Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Pune

ITA 1004/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(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

Satyapal Singh Chauhan, Delhi vs. Intome Tax Officer Ward-61(1), Delhi

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

ITA 935/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.935/Del/2024 [Assessment

Neeraj Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 841/DEL/2024[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Neeraj Sharma, Vs Ito, Ch.No.206-207, Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ward-2(5), Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. Pan-Aynps1581M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akhilesh Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Govind Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

Ld.CIT(A has infact allowed the appeal for statistical purposes for verification of cost of acquisition which is not in accordance to section 250(4) of the Act. This section reads, “Ld.CIT(A) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit, or may direct

Rajendra Damodhar Jadhav, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 717/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 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

M/S. Dr. M Nagaraju & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Trust (R), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 519/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 250(4)

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not passing the order in accordance with the provisions of section 250(4)/(6) of the Act; 3. In the absence of proper service of notice/order, the impugned reassessment order is bad in law and against the principles ... Appeals) decided the appeal in a hasty manner without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee and without going into the merits as per section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Act. He further requested for deletion of the addition and relied on the decision on the following in support

Arvind Kumar Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Hapur

ITA 2108/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Arvind Kumar Singh, Vs Ito, 282, Boundry Road, Ward 3(4), Civil Line, Hapur. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh – 250 001. Pan: Dbyps2729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND

Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 255/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-I, Kanpur vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal, Mumbai

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

ITA 442/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Cit V. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Central Circle-I 2601, Glenridege Kanpur Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaopj1739K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Namita S Pandey, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 13 05 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 05 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(4)

Page 5 of 9 the additional evidences furnished by the assessee were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for submitting the inquiry report under section 250(4) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), after admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee and considering the inquiry report submitted ... Assessing Officer under section 250(4) of the Act, deleted most of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal. 7. During the course of hearing before