← 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)

Pooja Oberoi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 4400/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271A

pertinent to note that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 w.e.f. 1st October, 2024, the learned CIT(A) has been empowered under section 251(1)(a) of the Act to set aside the assessment and remand the case back to the AO for making a fresh assessment, in case

Eclerx Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4314/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4314/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Eclerx Services Limited Unit No.401, 4Th Office Level, Building No.11, Serene Properties Pvt. Ltd. Sez Mind, Thane, Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 708 Pan : Aaace7932L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Hdfc Limited Which in Turn Was A Successor to Hdfc Investments Li, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4208/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4208/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Hdfc Bank Limited (Successor To Hdfc Limited Which In Turn Was A Successor To Hdfc Investments Limited) Hdfc Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaach2702H/Aaach1462L

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 80G

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT

Naval Kishor Mundra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for

ITA 4200/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

deciding the legal grounds with respect to validity of reopening u/s 148 and 147 of the Act was contrary to the proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act as made available on the statute by the Finance (No.2) Act 2023 w.e.f. 01.10.2024. 6. Ld. DR on the other ... Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the "Proviso" to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, as per which the CIT(A) has been vested with the power to set-aside the assessment and refer the case back

Merrmax Software and Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4087/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4087/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Merrmax Software & Systems Private Limited C/O. Veeta Legal Services, 7 Raheja Centre, Ground Floor, Fpj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan : Aaecm2026K

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Makwana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

Mangalam Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(2), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 166/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.166/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Mangalam Developers Shop No.38, Plot No.17/18, Gautam Complex, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai Pan : Aatfm2007L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 3Section 43C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

Samta Mittal, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1391/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Samta Mittal Vs. Ito 601, Royal Retreat, New Delhi Surajkund, Faridabad Pan No. Agzpm5730G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

enquiries to gather material for a true and correct estimation of income of the appellant. (iii) As per the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals) in case of order of assessment made u/s. 144 of the Act, may set aside such assessment ... making a fresh assessment. This proviso has been inserted in the Act w.e.f. 1.10.2024. The said proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act is reproduced as under: “251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the following powers— in an appeal against an order

Herald Publications Pvt. Ltd, Panaji vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 160/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 160/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Herald Publication Pvt. Ltd. Ag-6, Campal Trade Centre, Opp. Taj Vivanta, H/H Mili, Panaji, Goa-403001 Pan : Aaach4580K . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Sanket Deshmukh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 371(1)Section 43B

while dealing with the appeal for passing an order u/s 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. NFAC in view of prescription of Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act was required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

applied by AO, therefore, the CIT(A) cannot apply it even on alternative basis. It is relevant to mention here that as per section 251 (1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the CIT (A) shall have the power “in an appeal against an order of assessment he may confirm ... thinks fit or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report to the ld. CIT(A). As per section 251(1)(a) of the Act, in appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but there is no such power

Bharatkumar Rajashree, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1279/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Travenza Holidays, No. Ward-7(2)(1), 180/A, 16Th Main 4Th ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru. Jayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru-560041. Pan No : Auopr4145D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2016-17 On 05/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 22/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Argumentative In Nature & Mainly They Revolve Around The Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 33,45,000/- (Being 1/3Rd Of The Entire Amount For Being Joint Holder

For Appellant: Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

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

Income Tax Officer, Ayakar Bhawan vs. K P Exim, Main Bahadur Ke Road, Ludhiana

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 286/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 287/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer K P Exim Inc बनाम/ Vs. Rishi Nagar Main Bahadur Ke Road Ludhiana.141001. Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfk-2926-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) A/W Shri Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y.K. Saxena ( Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue Have Identical Facts. In Ay 2014-15, Ld. Ao Has Framed An Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 26- 03-2022 Making Addition Of Rs.360.17 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Representation During Assessment Proceedings. Considering This Fact, Ld. Cit(A) Exercised Remand Power In Terms Of Proviso To Sec.251(1)(A) & Directed Ld. Ao To Make Fresh Assessment. Similar

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Y.K. Saxena ( Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan vs. K P Exim Inc, Main Bahadur Ke Road

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 286/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 287/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer K P Exim Inc बनाम/ Vs. Rishi Nagar Main Bahadur Ke Road Ludhiana.141001. Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfk-2926-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) A/W Shri Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y.K. Saxena ( Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue Have Identical Facts. In Ay 2014-15, Ld. Ao Has Framed An Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 26- 03-2022 Making Addition Of Rs.360.17 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Representation During Assessment Proceedings. Considering This Fact, Ld. Cit(A) Exercised Remand Power In Terms Of Proviso To Sec.251(1)(A) & Directed Ld. Ao To Make Fresh Assessment. Similar

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Y.K. Saxena ( Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Ludhiana vs. Vishal Singh, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 169/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.169/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Ward 2(1) Shri Vishal Singh Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar H.No 6998 St No 2 बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana.141001 Basti Jodhewal Ludhiana.141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Isdps-5952-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Aman Parti (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-12- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 26-12- 2022. The Ld. Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee By Making Various Additions. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Effective

For Appellant: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Aman Parti (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Ludhiana vs. Romex Industrial Corporat Ion, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 168/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito-Ward 2(1) M/S Romex Industrial Corporation बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan 439/1A, Naya Mohalla Brown Road Rishi Nagar Ludhiana. Ludhiana (East) Central Post Office S.O. Vs. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabfr-6473-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-12- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31-03- 2022. The Ld. Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee By Making Addition Of Rs.199.59 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Effective

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Ludhiana vs. Nand Mangal Steels Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 160/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ), Cl-I, Ludhiana vs. Mahesh Goyal, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.154/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Jcit (In- Situ) Shri Mahesh Goyal बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Surya Commercial Centre Circle-1, Ludhiana. Opp. Pau Gate No -1 Vs. Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abgpg-2297-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04-12- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 31-03- 2022. The Ld. Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee By Making Addition Of Rs.230.60 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Effective

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 Pune, Pune vs. Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 341/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

taxation on revenue recognition as expressed in item no. 1 above, this notice may be treated as a notice in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, for the reason that addition u/s 68 can be made only in respect of credits infused during the year while ... against section 68 adopted by the AO, which was ordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of section 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted on 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting approach

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd (Successor Kumar Housing Corpn. Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2875/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

taxation on revenue recognition as expressed in item no. 1 above, this notice may be treated as a notice in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, for the reason that addition u/s 68 can be made only in respect of credits infused during the year while ... against section 68 adopted by the AO, which was ordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of section 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted on 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting approach

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd (Successor Kumar Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

taxation on revenue recognition as expressed in item no. 1 above, this notice may be treated as a notice in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, for the reason that addition u/s 68 can be made only in respect of credits infused during the year while ... against section 68 adopted by the AO, which was ordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of section 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted on 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting approach

Yasmeen Shaikh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1264/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Ward-5(3)(5), Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bellandur, Vs. Bengaluru-560103. Pan No : Aovps3088K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 25/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below, Insofar As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Disposing Off The Appeal Holding That The Appellant Has Not Complied

For Appellant: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate
Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

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 ITANo.1264/Bang/2025 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh ... 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