← 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)

Rayirth Holding and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.3214/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3214/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Issued The Notice In The Wrong Email Account. The Appeal Order Is Passed Ex Parte & Upheld The Assessment Order. Being Aggrieved On The Appeal Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri AnoopHiwase, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

then render in writing after stating the points 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

Saket M Jain (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application-Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 250

with law. The power of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with the power of Assessing Officer which even includes power of enhancement(Section 251(1)(a)). The ld. CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the issues on merit in accordance with law , as is provided

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 730/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2009-10 Mahendra Mohanlalji Jaiswal, Besides Tulja Mata Mandir, Near Power House, Darga Base, Jalna. Pan: Amzpj5075F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jalna. . . . . . . . Respondent & Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, At Mandvi Mandvi, Kinwat, Nanded. Pan: Auspj5624P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nanded. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Ms Deepa Khare & Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Two Appeals Of Different Assessee Filed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1037975185(1) Dt. 21/12/2021 & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056525970(1) Dt. 26/09/2023 Respectively Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Ms Deepa Khare & Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

further note that, while disposing of the said appeal, the Ld. NFAC did fail to adjudicate the issue on merits in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and also failed to pass a speaking order in the manner required by s/s (6) of section ... further note that, while disposing of the appeal, the Ld. NFAC did fail to adjudicate the issue on merits in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and also failed to pass a speaking order in the manner prescribed by s/s (6) of section

Mahendra Mohanlalji Jaiswal, Jalna vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Jalna

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 678/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2009-10 Mahendra Mohanlalji Jaiswal, Besides Tulja Mata Mandir, Near Power House, Darga Base, Jalna. Pan: Amzpj5075F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jalna. . . . . . . . Respondent & Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, At Mandvi Mandvi, Kinwat, Nanded. Pan: Auspj5624P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nanded. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Ms Deepa Khare & Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Two Appeals Of Different Assessee Filed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1037975185(1) Dt. 21/12/2021 & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056525970(1) Dt. 26/09/2023 Respectively Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Ms Deepa Khare & Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

further note that, while disposing of the said appeal, the Ld. NFAC did fail to adjudicate the issue on merits in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and also failed to pass a speaking order in the manner required by s/s (6) of section ... further note that, while disposing of the appeal, the Ld. NFAC did fail to adjudicate the issue on merits in terms of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and also failed to pass a speaking order in the manner prescribed by s/s (6) of section

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Accel Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2169/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)

remitting the issue of depreciation, general and administrative expenses, finance charges & loss on sale of investments for verification in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 8 I.T.A. Nos.1910 & 2167-2169/Chny/19 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/20 16. We find that this ground attain no significance ... remitting the issue of depreciation, general and administrative expenses, finance charges & loss on sale of investments for verification in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 23. Similar ground raised by the Revenue in the assessment year 2012-13, which was adjudicated hereinabove by confirming

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Accel Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2168/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)

remitting the issue of depreciation, general and administrative expenses, finance charges & loss on sale of investments for verification in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 8 I.T.A. Nos.1910 & 2167-2169/Chny/19 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/20 16. We find that this ground attain no significance ... remitting the issue of depreciation, general and administrative expenses, finance charges & loss on sale of investments for verification in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 23. Similar ground raised by the Revenue in the assessment year 2012-13, which was adjudicated hereinabove by confirming

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Accel Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2167/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)

remitting the issue of depreciation, general and administrative expenses, finance charges & loss on sale of investments for verification in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 8 I.T.A. Nos.1910 & 2167-2169/Chny/19 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/20 16. We find that this ground attain no significance ... remitting the issue of depreciation, general and administrative expenses, finance charges & loss on sale of investments for verification in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 23. Similar ground raised by the Revenue in the assessment year 2012-13, which was adjudicated hereinabove by confirming

DCIT, Chennai vs. Accel Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1910/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(2)

remitting the issue of depreciation, general and administrative expenses, finance charges & loss on sale of investments for verification in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 8 I.T.A. Nos.1910 & 2167-2169/Chny/19 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/20 16. We find that this ground attain no significance ... remitting the issue of depreciation, general and administrative expenses, finance charges & loss on sale of investments for verification in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. 23. Similar ground raised by the Revenue in the assessment year 2012-13, which was adjudicated hereinabove by confirming

M/S Five Roses, Kanpur vs. Dy, CIT-CC-1, Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 273/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

which arose for determination. Thus, the Ld. CIT (A) was duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Moreover, the perusal of Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of 1.T. Act and the further perusal of Explanation of Section 251(2) of 1.T. Act shows that ... issues which arose from the impugned order before him, whether or not these issues had been raised by the Assessee before him. Also, Section 251(1)(a) of 1.T. Act provides that while disposing of an appeal against Assessment Order, Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the power to confirm, reduce

M/S Five Roses, Kanpur vs. J/DCIT-CC, Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

which arose for determination. Thus, the Ld. CIT (A) was duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Moreover, the perusal of Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of 1.T. Act and the further perusal of Explanation of Section 251(2) of 1.T. Act shows that ... issues which arose from the impugned order before him, whether or not these issues had been raised by the Assessee before him. Also, Section 251(1)(a) of 1.T. Act provides that while disposing of an appeal against Assessment Order, Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the power to confirm, reduce

M/S Five Roses, Kanpur vs. Dy, CIT-CC-1, Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 292C

which arose for determination. Thus, the Ld. CIT (A) was duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Moreover, the perusal of Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of 1.T. Act and the further perusal of Explanation of Section 251(2) of 1.T. Act shows that ... issues which arose from the impugned order before him, whether or not these issues had been raised by the Assessee before him. Also, Section 251(1)(a) of 1.T. Act provides that while disposing of an appeal against Assessment Order, Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the power to confirm, reduce

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hsbc Electronic Data Processing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

look into the expenditure item-wise for its admissibility, which is not a permissible action under the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Treatment of Unclaimed Liabilities: 4. erred in facts and in law by treating the unclaimed liabilities as income under section 41(1 ... review the taxability of unclaimed ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page 4 liabilities, which is not permitted under the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Expenses pertaining to purchases of computer software as Capital Expenditure: Revised Ground 5. erred in holding that the payment for purchase of software

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3999/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 195Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Rs.86,88,215/- QAI India Ltd. (ii) That the aforesaid act of the CIT(A) is in violation of the provision of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and therefore bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

Qai India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3998/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 195Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Rs.86,88,215/- QAI India Ltd. (ii) That the aforesaid act of the CIT(A) is in violation of the provision of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and therefore bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both

Sardarbhai Ramsangbhai Dhuliya, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Previously Ward-5, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 899/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 22-05-2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

with law. The power of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with the power of Assessing Officer which even includes power of enhancement(Section 251(1)(a)). The ld. CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the issues on merit in accordance with law , as is provided

Hon Shri Babanrao Pachpute Vichardhara Trust Group of Institution Kashti, Kashti vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad

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

ITA 551/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Prasad R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 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 ... 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

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1061/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT-(OSD)- Central Circle 2(4), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1060/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1056/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Suhas Maruti Dhankude, Pune vs. JCIT (OSD)- Central Circle 2(4) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms

ITA 1055/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr UK Chavan [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(1)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI