Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.359

Section 250(6) falls under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 359 (Procedure in appeal) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 359 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 250(6) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 of the 6,270 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 250(6)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

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.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court
351
citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
171 Taxmann.com 696 · 2025 · High Court
200
citing judgments

The ITAT fails to uphold natural justice when it doesn't address an infirmity regarding an assessee being denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the matter ex-parte.

Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
69 Taxmann.com 407 · 2016 · High Court
159
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution; the law does not empower them to do so. The appeal must be decided on merits and in writing, stating points for determination, decision, and reasons.

Judgments on Section 250(6)

Shyam Kumar Netam, Mahasamund vs. ACIT, Mahasamund

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

ITA 375/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.374, 375 & 376/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Shyam Kumar Netam Rajasevaiya Pithoura, Ward No.3, Mahasamund-493 551 (C.G.) Pan: Apspn2061H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Shyam Kumar Netam, Mahasamund vs. ACIT, Mahasamund

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

ITA 374/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.374, 375 & 376/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Shyam Kumar Netam Rajasevaiya Pithoura, Ward No.3, Mahasamund-493 551 (C.G.) Pan: Apspn2061H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Subhashchandra Radhakishan Chechani, Jalna vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 360/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.360/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Ashok Goel, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-28, Delhi

ITA 1624/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1623/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1624/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ashok Goel, Vs Acit, N-49, Second Floor, Block-N, Central Circle-28, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aekpg3958B Assessee By: Sh. Manish Upneja, Ca & Sh. Sanju, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Upneja, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 250(6)

Ashok Goel, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-28, Delhi

ITA 1623/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1623/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1624/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ashok Goel, Vs Acit, N-49, Second Floor, Block-N, Central Circle-28, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aekpg3958B Assessee By: Sh. Manish Upneja, Ca & Sh. Sanju, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Upneja, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 250(6)

Reeta Devi, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1608/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1608/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Reeta Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 56, Sector-84, Kheri Ward-2(1), Kalan, B.O. Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Coqpd3122N Assessee By: None Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074197400(1) Dated 07.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Raj Pal Singh, Meharuli vs. Income Tax Officer 29(8), Civic Centre

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1236/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1236/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Raj Pal Singh, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, H. No. 335A/8, Near Competent Delhi Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anqps5770C Assessee By: Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070990683(1) Dated 17.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

Taru Batra, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Gautam Budh Nagar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5895/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5895/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Taru Batra, Vs Income Tax Officer, A/3, 2Nd B-85, Nehru Nagar, Ward-5(3)(5), Ghazibad, U.P.-201001 Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201307 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aqzpb6663P Assessee By: Sh. Abhishek Jain, Ca & Sh. Dilip Singh, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067602214(1) Dated 13.08.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Jain, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

Ankita Agarwal, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.499/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ankita Agarwal………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Near Kali Mandir, Harharguttu, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831002. [Pan: Atkpa9502A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 125 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

Khurshid Alam, Bokaro vs. ITO Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 496/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.496/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Khurshid Alam.………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Jhirkey, Kathara, Bokaro, Jharkhand-829116. [Pan: Ahxpa0635P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 540 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,38,770/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

Pawan Kumar, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ranchi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Vipin Sharma, Giridih vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Dhanbad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.480/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vipin Sharma………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Thana Road Suriya Beside Dayal Bhawan, Suriya, Barki Saraiya, Giridih, Jharkhand – 825320. [Pan: Dgjps4695R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Dhn........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Has Not Filed Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.36,12,900/- During The Relevant Assessment Year Into His Bank

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Jins Dominic, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Jins Dominic, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Jins Dominic, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Jins Dominic, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Ambalappuzha Service Co-Operative Society Ltd, Ambalappuzha vs. ITO, Ward -2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

ITA 373/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Kachayi Makkool Shakkiruddeen, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Kannur

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

ITA 334/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kachayi Makkool Shakkiruddeen .......... Appellant Aysha Veneers, Industrial Development Plot P.O. Parassinikkadavi, Andoor, Kannur 670565 [Pan: Awgps7877E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sreehari A.C., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari A.C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250(6)

Swetank Madhuvir Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2155/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr DR
Section 147Section 234Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

Kamdhenu Foods, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 1 Sangli, Sangli

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

ITA 688/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.688/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kamdhenu Foods, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 177 Peth Nhag, Ward-1, Sangli Gavali Galli, Sangli – 416 416 Maharashtra Pan : Aaifk8508M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)