“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)

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Delhi

Accordingly, we find no error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby uphold. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2330/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Dy. Cit, Crystal Crop Protection Circle-4(2), Delhi. Limited, Vs. B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Arising Out Of Ita No.2330/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Crystal Crop Protection Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-4(2), Delhi. B-95, Wazirpur, Vs. Industrial Area Delhi, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aabcj3574E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Nagar, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 C.O. No.159/Del/2023 Dcit Vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee For Following Assessment Years.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

appellant/revenue on two grounds. C.O. No.159/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Crystal Crop Protection Limited 17.1 Firstly, that the CIT(A) had exercised his powers under Section 250(4) of the Act which was co-equal to that of the AO. It also took note of the fact that notice was issued ... remand was not called for. We agree with Mr. Seth's contention that the CIT(A) in the exercise of its powers under section 250(4) of the Act was entitled to seek production of documents and/or material to satisfy himself as to whether or not the deductions claimed were

Hemant Kumar Parmar, Raipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 759/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.759/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Hemant Kumar Parmar Prop. Of M/S. Parmar Thread House, Ganesh Ram Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Akppp1099R

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For 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.” 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals

Hitesh Parmar, Raipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 758/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.758/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Hitesh Parmar Prop. Of M/S. Parmar Thread House, Ganesh Ram Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Ajepp6696A

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

M/S Vishal Packiging, Raipur vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 635/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.634/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vishal Singh 2Nd Floor, Navbharat Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur-492 006 Pan: Ajjps4000Q

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, 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.” 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, we set-aside the respective orders

Vishal Singh, Raipur vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 634/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, 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.” 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, we set-aside the respective orders

Sharda Devi Singh, Raipur vs. ITO, Mahasamund

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

ITA 632/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 632/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sharda Devi Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, W/O Shri Shailendra Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, K-8, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, Mahasamund- 493445, Raipur-492001, C.G. C.G. Pan: Clzps1287D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69

have been raised by the assessee before him/her. 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

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

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

Murtuza Hasanali Netterwala, Mumbai vs. Incom Tax Officer, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 6341/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(4)(a)Section 250(4)Section 276C

adjudicated, unless the impugned order challenged before us, has any finding qua the merits of the issue in terms of provisions of section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. 2 Shri Muruza Hasanali Netterwala 4. Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee, which found

Susamma John, Bengalore vs. ITO Faceless, Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.750/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Susamma John S 207 Sai Sakthi Avhni 343/35, Sriramapura, Jakkar B.O, Bangalore North, Bangalore-560 064 Karnataka Pan: Ajtpj8725D

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250(4)

/NFAC without negating the contents of Form 26AS has summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee which therefore is not in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act nor within the principles of natural justice as contemplated within the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority. Accordingly

Ravi Prakash Yadav, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Durg

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

ITA 527/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.527/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ravi Prakash Yadav C/O. Ravi Gas Agency, Main Road, Kailash Nagar, Bhilai, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Abopy1043J

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 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 order, on the same parity of reasoning and as per similar

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I Noida, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

appeal CIT(A) raising certain grounds. That during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A), in exercise of the powers conferred under section 250(4) of the Act, directed an independent enquiry and issued a notice under section 133(6) to M/s CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Limited vide letter dated ... with the powers of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) was fully justified in making further enquiries by exercising powers under section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the present case, the learned CIT(A) had called for specific information from CFMARC in order

M/S Kubera Dal & Besan Millsz, Pune vs. CIT Circle- 5, Pune

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

ITA 1966/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1966/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Kubera Dal & Besan V Dy.Cit, Millsz, S Circle-5, Pune. 21 To 24, Marketyard, Gultekadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aakfk3139J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Advocate Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake – (On Rotation Duty) Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 24.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

Wines 2000 and Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1210/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69A

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

Ls Metatech Private Limited, Raipur vs. ITO, Circle 1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 766/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.766/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2024-25 Ls Metatech Private Limited 109, 1St Floor, Meghdoot Complex, Behind Vandana Bhawan, M. G. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcl5735B

For Appellant: Shri Shubham B Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 288Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

Raipur Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, for which, an ex-parte order has been passed considering the documents on record. The provisions of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act as mandated within the Act has to be complied with by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Following the rule of consistency

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Dilip Motilalji Chordia, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as

ITA 1486/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1486/Pun/2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 44ASection 96

सत्यमेव जयते IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Anant Electricals and Engineers, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5454/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

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

ITA 1653/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, Advocate and Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)

Extraordinary items amounting to Rs.3,53,90,000/- without remanding the issues to AO for verification even though CIT(A) has powers under section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to do so?” ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the contribution ... without remanding the issues to AO for verification even though CIT(A) has powers under section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to do so? iii) The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of, or before, the hearing

Gujarat State Electricity Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1596/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, Advocate and Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Delhi Foodstech Private Limited, Karampura, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1968/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Delhi Foodstech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 308, Shivlok House-1, Karampura, New Delhi Pan: Aafcd2062D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Anket Pagariya, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

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

ITA 745/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.745/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anket Pagariya 118-119, C/O. Pagaria Jewellers, Halwai Lane, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aovpp8778F

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(4)

First Appellate Authority. Resultantly, the First Appellate Authority was compelled to pass an ex-parte order and the mandate of the provision of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) could not have been complied with. 4. In the aforesaid decision (supra), another ... 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 aforesaid order, all these matters are remanded back to the file