← All Phrases

“Section 251(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)1,012 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 251(1)(a) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry
44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court
278
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT
251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court
253
citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co.
251 ITR 864 · 2001 · High Court
240
citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot introduce a new source of income that was not considered by the Assessing Officer; taxability of new sources should be addressed through reassessment provisions like Section 147/148 or revision under Section 263.

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.
326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court
196
citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT
231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court
186
citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Judgments citing Section 251(1)(a)

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 204/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority ... fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 203/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority ... fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. DCIT(TDS), Raipur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 202/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority ... fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. ITO(TDS), Bilaspur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 201/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority ... fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. ITO(TDS), Bilaspur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 200/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority ... fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. ITO(TDS), Bilaspur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 199/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority ... fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. ITO(TDS), Bilaspur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 198/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority ... fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. ITO(TDS), Bilaspur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 197/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ACIT(TDS), Raipur ITA No. 197 to 223 & 275 to 301/RPR/2025, AY 2017-18 8. Without reproducing loose, stock & barrel of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, it shall suffice to state that, the bare/plain reading of provision clearly suggest that w.e.f. 01/10/2024 the first appellate authority ... fresh directed by the Ld. CIT(A) finds no place in the statute. Since such direction remand is devoid of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, therefore deserves to be vacated. We say so, because erstwhile provisions of section 251(1) of the Act which

Golden Sparrow Media Works Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1402/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1402/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Golden Sparrow Media Works V Acit, Pvt. Ltd., S Circle-1(1), Pune. 884/9, Pinnacle House, Padmanabh Society, Erandwane, Pune City, Pune, Deccan Gymkhana S.O.-411004. Pan: Aafcg2237H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.03.2025 For The A.Y.2015-16 Emanating From The Order Under

Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply 4 ITA No.1402/PUN/2025 [A] clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues

Manda Shantaram Garade, Talegaon Dabhade vs. Income Tax Officer 9(3), Akurdi

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

ITA 1343/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1343/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Manda Shantaram Garade, V The Assessing Officer, 66, Dhamane Gavthan, Near S Ward-9(3), Pune. Padmavati Mandir, Talegaon, Maharashtra – 410506. Pan: Bjcpg4762K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi(Virtual), Aadnya Bhandari(Present In Itat Pune Bench) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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 Dated 26.03.2025 For The A.Y.2019-20 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply 7 ITA No.1343/PUN/2025 [A] clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Akshay Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4309/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Akshay Automobiles 129, Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limited, Mumbai-400020. Vs. 1, 2 William Compound, 33 Marve Road, Mith Chowke, Malad (East), Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aafca3582P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-04-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Wherein The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

assessing officer by disallowing the unsecured loan and addition Rs. 34,56,000/- on account of cash deposits without considering the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the IT. Act vide which the assessment could have been set aside to the file of the AO for deciding it afresh ... Ld.CIT(A) instead of deciding the matter should have remanded the matter back to the AO by drawing our reference to proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 9. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the material available on record. Firstly, it is noted that

Dilip Tripathi, Ambikapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur

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

ITA 528/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.528/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dilip Tripathi Ward No.10, Mahupara, Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, Surguja-497 001 Pan: Alupt7371C

For Appellant: Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

M/S Shree Hanuman Pulses, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Raipur

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

ITA 460/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 460/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shree Hanuman Pulses 17A Industrial Area, Bhanpuri, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Abvfs8419D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Das Processors, Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Bhilai 1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 394/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.394/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Das Processors 44, Vardhman Nagar, Jain School Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aaifd6768Q

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Suresh Kumar Agrawal, Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2(1), Bilaspu, Bilaspur

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

ITA 370/RPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 370/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Suresh Kumar Agrawal Contractor Main Road, Post-Lormi, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 115 Pan: Adlpa9083B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Rajesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (2), Gaya

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

ITA 171/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271FSection 69A

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise

Shri Nityanand Pandey, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... I.T.A. No.: 2067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nityanand Pandey. prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind

Nalini Mahendra Thacker, Mumbai vs. ITO- 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4881/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

No.2336 of 2013 dated 25.04.2016 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom.) 614, wherein it has been held as under: “That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply hi- mind to all the issues

Asha Himmat Bhadra, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4764/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra, Dcit – Circle 32(1) 401 Beach Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, Balraj Sahani Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Novotel Hotel, Vs. Bandra (East) Juhu, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai Maharashtra– 400 051 Maharashtra – 400 049 Pan: Aabpb7076J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Though In The Instant Case, Both The Parties Have Filed Adjournment Applications, However, This Court Observes That The Impugned Order Is An Ex-Parte & Therefore It Would Be Appropriate To Dismiss The Adjournment Requests & To Proceed With The Case To Decide The Same. Thus, The Adjournments Requests Are Declined & Case Is Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

No.2336 of 2013 dated 25.04.2016 (2017) 297 CTR (Bom.) 614, wherein it has been held under: “That this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) & (b) and explanation 2 to section 251(2) of the Act, which requires CIT(A) to apply hi- mind to all the issues, which

Akash Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 433/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.431 & 432/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Pooja Agrawal C/O. Subash Agrawal & Associates Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700 069 Pan: Amcpa7626A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Hearing