Which cases are most cited on Section 250?

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) — 3,926 citing judgments; CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192) — 2,664 citing judgments; CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) — 2,267 citing judgments; CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) — 2,228 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 250?

BharatTax indexes 26,976 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act?

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) is the decision most relied on for Section 250, cited in 3,926 judgments. Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.359

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 26,976 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 250

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.

88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court

2,664

citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

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.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court

1,842

citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI

73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court

1,778

citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT

193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court

1,695

citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

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.

Judgments on Section 250

Bajrang Pulses and Agro Products (P) Ltd, Jalna vs. Income Tax Office Ward-1, Jalna

ITA 221/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.221/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021 Bajrang Pulses & Agro Products (P) Ltd., Bajrang Dal Mill Compound, Sardar Patel Rd., Jalna–431203 Pan : Aaifb0690H . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Jalna . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Deepali Kalbandhe सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [“Ay” In Short] 2020-21 Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Nfac” In Short] Dt. 26/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act” In Short] Which In Turn Originated Out Of Order Of Rectification Passed U/S 154 Of The Act Dt. 02/03/2022 By The Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Deepali Kalbandhe

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Kantadevi Vijay Oswal Radhakrishna Niwas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 188/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.188/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Devi Construction Company Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle 1(2), Pune

ITA 173/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.170 To 173/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Devi Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., 1161/10, Devi Niwas, Plot No.37, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 Pan : Aaacd6005B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswara Rao & Deepali Kalbandhe

Section 250

Jagadhatri Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 13/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.13/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jagadhatri Tracon Pvt. Ltd.......…………………................................…Appellant Room No.15B, Everest House, 46C, Chowringheee Road, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcj3627L] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata.....................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.11.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed In Ita No.Cit(A), Kolkata-21/10435/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Brought Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Was An Ex Parte Order. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Brought Our Attention To The Acknowledgement For Filing Of Application For Adjournment To Submit That On The Date Of Hearing The Assessee Had Filed An Adjournment Application. However, The Ld. Cit(A) Without Considering The

Section 250

Bimal Kumar Agarwal, Delhi vs. I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata Now Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 605/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.605/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bimal Kumar Agarwal.......................................................................……Appellant 1039, Gandhi Gali, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006. [Pan: Adapa7127P] Vs. Ito, Ward-45(1), Kolkata…….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kr. Agrawal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.09.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.56,00,539/- On Account Of Sundry Creditors Treating The Same As Bogus & Thereby Treating The Said Amount As Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Assessing Officer To Submit That

Section 133(6)Section 250

Sana Tondon Benefit Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(Exemption) - Ward-1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 553/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.553/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sana Tondon Benefit Trust..........................................………...…..…Appellant 4, Copper Street, Richi Park, Kolkata-700020. [Pan: Aadas8436Q] Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ward-1(3), Kolkata..................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.09.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Benefit Trust Formed On 27.03.2009 & Registered By A Deed Executed On 15.06.2010. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income By Declaring Rs.1,01,590/- As Income. However, While Filing Of Return Of Income, The Assessee Mistakenly Filed Itr 7 Instead Of Itr 5. The

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

Trident Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1738/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.1738/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Trident Commercial Pvt. Ltd.............................................................……Appellant Room 408A, 25A, Camac Street, W.B-700016. [Pan: Aaact9662L] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata……….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Appeal Was Listed On Board On 03.12.2019 & Thereafter, It Has Been Fixed For Almost More Than 25 Times. Earlier, There Was No Response From The Assessee/Appellant To The Notices Of Hearing Issued By The Tribunal On Various Dates. However, On Certain Dates Shri Somnath Ghosh Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Requested For Adjournments Which Were Accordingly Granted. However, From The Last

Section 250

DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2544/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.2543&2544/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata............................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Kaushalya Infra. Development Corp. Ltd.........…….....…..…..Respondent Hb-170, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Appearances By: Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.09.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.2543/Kol/2018 For Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2008. In The Said Assessment, The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ia(4) Of Rs.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2543/KOL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

M/S Desai & Co., Hubballi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Hubballi

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

ITA 152/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 249Section 250Section 36Section 40Section 40A

Akhilesh Singh, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 437/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.437/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akhilesh Singh………………..………………………………........….……Appellant 268, G.T. Road, Narayani Complex, 1St Floor, Liluah, Howrah-711204. [Pan: Akups0920P] Vs. Ito, Ward-13(4), Kolkata…..……......................….........…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 आदेश / Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed In Appeal No.N218/Cit(A)/Wd-13(4)/16-17/Kol U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making Addition Of Rs.34,65,000/- On Account Of Cash Found Deposited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 144/147 Of The

Section 144Section 250

Manu Kumar Shahi, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 8/RAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.8/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manu Kumar Shahi…….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 94, East Plant Basti, Burmanines, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831007. [Pan: Barps6204E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Jamshedpur.……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.12.2021 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’).

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

Sumita Singh, Dhanbad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Dhanbad

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

ITA 7/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.5,6&7/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sumita Singh….……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Rajput Bhawan, Dhansar, Dhanbad-828106, Jharkhand. [Pan: Aieps3454J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28 , 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.10.2021, 26.11.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since All The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee & Identical Issues Are Involved, Hence, These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.5/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Estimating The Agriculture Income Of The Assessee At Rs.50,000/- As Against The Claim Of Agriculture Income Of 1

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Sumita Singh, Dhanbad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Dhanbad

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

ITA 6/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Sumita Singh, Dhanbad vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Dhanbad

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

ITA 5/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

S S Charitable Trust, Dumka vs. CIT Appeal, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust stands allowed

ITA 49/RAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.49/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 S S Charitable Trust..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant S S Vidya Vihar School, New Kumar Para, Near Dudhani Rasikpur, Asharam Road, Jharkhand-814110. [Pan: Aafts1387R] Vs. Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi…………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Trust Against The Order Dated 30.03.2022 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’).

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 234Section 250

Vindhyeshwari Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Ramgarh vs. DCIT Circle-1, Hazarigab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2/RAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.2/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vindhyeshwari Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd……...…......................……...…..….. Appellant B-4, Tirupati Balaji Complex, Main Road, Ramgarh, Jharkhand-829122. [Pan: Aaecv1174F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Hazaribagh….……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.05.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh, Jharkhand [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250