“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)

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessing Officer may accept the Section 148/147 return of income without making any addition or disallowance; 2) The assessment is framed and the Section 251(1)(a) Assessing Officer makes certain additions or disallowances and in making such additions or disallowances, he deals with such item or items of income ... buttressed by the several decisions of various courts of law including the Apex court. The ld.CIT-DR took us through the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and argued that the CIT(A) has given powers not only to confirm, reduce, or annul the assessment, but even

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, Singapore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1711/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 74

annul the assessment while deciding the appeal u/s. 246A of the Act filed by the assessee which are within the purview of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) had also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case ... 1), Mumbai (ITA no.2366/Mum./2018), wherein it was held that the power of allowing withdrawal of appeal is not within the provision of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and has further held that the ld. CIT(A) has to decide the issue on the merits of the appeal

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 74

Prem Chand Yadav, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow - New

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

ITA 406/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

points which arose for determination in the appellate proceedings, including on all the grounds of appeal. Moreover, the perusal of section 251(1)(a) and (b) and further the perusal of Explanation of section 251(2) shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to apply his/her mind ... This non-application of mind is a contravention of statutory role of the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 251(2) of I.T. Act. Also, section 251(1)(a) provides that while disposing of an appeal against assessment order, Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul

Nrw Kuldeep Singh, Sukhvider Singh & Others, Kanpur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

ITA 76/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 076/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 New Kuldeep Singh Sukhvinder Singh & Ors 111A/29B, Rk Nagar, Kanpur. Up-208 012 Pan: Aadan2365F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Samrat Chandra [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

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

Paragkumar Dipakkumar Khamar, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 232/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144

with ld. CIT(A). The powers of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with the powers of the AO including power of enhancement(Section 251(1)(a)). The CIT(A) has power to make such inquiries as he thinks fit and may also direct AO to make such enquiries

Gopalkrishna Naginbhai Patel, Petlad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 545/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Against The Appellate Order Dated 8Th May, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi( Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052644110(1))

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

merit. 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 ... with ld. CIT(A). The powers of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with the powers of the AO including power of enhancement(Section 251(1)(a). The CIT(A) has power to make such inquiries as he thinks fit and may also direct AO to make such enquiries

B.K. Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 36(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. B.K. Sales Corporation, Vs. Acit, Circle 36 (1), D-1, Gf 5, Virat Bhawan, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Aaafb4846K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Dated 06.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Revenue : Disallowance Of Service Charges/Commission Paid To Six Hufs Rs.3196047 – A. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Ignored I. The Basic Fact Of The Assessee Being A Service Recipient Getting Such Services From Various Unrelated Entities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

income of the Appellant firm by Rs.1,95,39,767/- in respect of commission paid by it by resorting to the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) r.w.s. 251 (2) of the Act.” 4. Upon hearing both the parties, we admit the above additional ground as the same is legal

Medical Pollution Control Committee, Kanpur vs. ACIT, Central-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 77/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Medical Pollution Control V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Committee Income Tax 21E Block, Panki Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur City 208020 Kanpur Pan:Aaaac3243Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

points which arose for determination in the appellate proceedings, including on all the grounds of appeal. Moreover, the perusal of section 251(1)(a) and (b) and further the perusal of Explanation of section 251(2) shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to apply his/her mind ... application of mind is a contravention of statutory role of the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 251(2) of I.T. Act. Also, section 251(1)(a) provides that while disposing of an appeal against assessment order, Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Similarly

Kapil Deo Tripathi, Lucknow vs. DCIT Circle-4 Lucknow, Lucknow

ITA 231/LKW/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.231/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kapil Dev Tripathi C-2395, Raja Ji Puram, Lucknow, Up-226017 Pan: Abzpt7328G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax Acit/Dcit-4, Lucknow . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Prashant Kr. Verma [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against The Ex-Parte Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053079897(1) Dt. 23/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/ Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] The Assessee Came In Appeal U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Prashant Kr. Verma [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 40

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

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

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

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

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

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 3 Sudhir Yashwant Kadam [A] Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaik Ayub Shaikh Mahebub Qureshi [A] 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 or annul ... 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

Khengarsinh Jadavbhai Gohel, Petlad vs. ITO Petlad, Petlad

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

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

merit. The power of ld. Addl./JIT(A) are co- terminus with the power of Assessing Officer which even includes power of enhancement(Section 251(1)(a) and 251(1A)(a)). The ld. Addl/JCIT(A) could have issued summons u/s. 131 to the assessee or could have called for information

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

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

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

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shree Kalika Devi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Karad, Karad vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

ITA 419/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Kalika Devi Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit 6/1, Kasar Galli, Guruwar Peth, Karad Ta.: Karad, Dist.: Satara-415110 Pan: Aaaak3735D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satara . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059407077(1) Dt. 05/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/06/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 80P(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND