This compilation indexes 12 recent rulings — 11 from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) across multiple benches and 1 from the Madras High Court — in which orders passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were challenged before the next appellate tier. The cases span assessment years ranging from AY 2011-12 to AY 2022-23 and were pronounced between January 2026 and May 2026. The compilation is intended as a structured research reference for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers tracking appellate proceedings under Section 250.

Research index only. This page is a case-law reference tool, not legal or tax advice. Readers should verify all rulings against the full text of the judgment and check for subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on any entry.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 governs the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] when disposing of an appeal filed before that authority. It prescribes the manner in which the CIT(A) must fix a day and place for hearing the appeal, give notice to both the appellant and the Assessing Officer, pass a reasoned order in writing, and communicate the order to the appellant and the Assessing Officer. The section also confers on the CIT(A) the power to adjourn hearings and to allow additional grounds of appeal not raised before the Assessing Officer, subject to satisfaction that the omission was not willful or unreasonable. Orders passed under this section are the subject of further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act, and in appropriate cases are also amenable to challenge before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The 12 rulings

1. Rambabu Sathi,Kakinada vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 13 May 2026
Sections engaged: 249(3), 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, as ITA 599/VIZ/2025, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12, with PAN AYWPS5887M on record. Per the source preview, the appellant set out grounds of appeal before the Tribunal; the substantive content of those grounds is not reproduced in the available preview, and no further detail can be confirmed from the source data.

2. Kundan Das ,Mumbai vs DCIT, Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 21 April 2026
Sections engaged: 250, 80G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 274/Mum/2026) was filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (NFAC), for Assessment Year 2019-20. Per the source preview, the assessee's grounds included challenges to reopening on the basis of information received from DIT(Inv.), Ahmedabad, the absence of an independent inquiry by the JAO before passing the order, mechanical approval, denial of personal hearing through video conferencing, and non-supply of statements recorded of concerned persons.

3. Maa Chhinna Cement And Isp P Ltd,Ramgarh vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ranchi
Date: 20 April 2026
Sections engaged: 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 87/RAN/2024) was filed by the assessee against the order dated 05.03.2024 of the CIT(A), Patna, passed under Section 250 of the Act, for Assessment Year 2018-19. Per the source preview, the sole issue involved was against the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 3,78,80,165/- made on account of difference (shortage and excess) in physical stock found during survey proceedings.

4. DCIT-Cc-2(1), Nagpur, Nagpur vs Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal, Nagpur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
Date: 10 April 2026
Sections engaged: 250, 69C
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA Nos. 220/NAG/2023) was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur, dated 12/05/2023, passed under Section 250 of the Act, arising out of an assessment order for Assessment Year 2015-16. Per the source preview, the assessee had filed a return of income for AY 2015-16 on 19/12/2015, declaring total income of Rs. 12,23,470/-, and the case was selected for scrutiny; the Revenue's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s treatment of the matters arising from that assessment.

5. Lire Investments Private vs The Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(3)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
Date: 9 April 2026
Sections engaged: 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 87/NAG/2025) was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 26/05/2023, passed under Section 250 of the Act, for Assessment Year 2012-13. Per the source preview, the Registry pointed out a delay of 557 days in filing the appeal, and the assessee filed an affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of that delay.

6. Knp Associates,Agra vs Ward1(1)(1), Agra, Agra

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra
Date: 9 April 2026
Sections engaged: 133(6), 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The assessee filed appeal (ITA No. 525/AGR/2025) against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 19.08.2025, for Assessment Year 2022-23. Per the source preview, at the time of filing the appeal the Registry pointed out a defect; the preview also records responses to notices under Section 133(6) from associated entities, noting that the dates of their incorporation or commencement of business post-dated the financial years in question.

7. Pramodbhai Haribhai Patel,Surat vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 24 March 2026
Sections engaged: 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (I.T.A. No. 1354/SRT/2025) was filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14, conducted through hybrid mode at the Ahmedabad Bench. Per the source preview, the order contains a tabulated comparison of limitation periods for reassessment-related notices as per the Apex Court and Gujarat High Court decisions and the appellant's own case dates, including the date of an original notice and dates relating to the reassessment process; the substantive grounds of the CIT(A) order being challenged are not further detailed in the available preview.

8. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs Atul Shivdas Ganatra , Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Date: 19 March 2026
Sections engaged: 148, 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three appeals (ITA No. 788 to 790/RJT/2024) were filed by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Years 2015-16, 2018-19, and 2019-20, directed against separate orders of the CIT(A). Per the source preview, the appeals were filed against those orders; the substantive content of the Revenue's challenge is not reproduced in the available preview beyond the identification of the assessment years and parties.

9. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot, Rajkot vs Rk Agency, Rajkot

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Date: 19 March 2026
Sections engaged: 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter involved six appeals — ITA No. 771 & 772/RJT/2024 filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2022-23, and ITA No. 801 to 804/RJT/2024 filed by RK Agency for Assessment Years 2019-20 to 2022-23 — all pertaining to the same assessee, RK Agency, with PAN AAEFR0303B. Per the source preview, the firm's partners are identified as Sarvanand S. Sonwani (50%) and Kamal Kumar Sonwani (50%); the substantive grounds of the respective appeals are not further detailed in the available preview.

10. Kavita Jain,Surat vs ITO, Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 17 February 2026
Sections engaged: 132, 144B, 147, 148, 149(1), 250, 69
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (I.T.A. No. 428/SRT/2025) was filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15. Per the source preview, the assessee's grounds included a challenge to the CIT(A) confirming the Assessing Officer's issuance of statutory notices, and a challenge to the addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act totalling Rs. 48,72,642/-, being alleged unexplained investment in property paid to M/s Amar Developers.

11. DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 28 January 2026
Sections engaged: 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1799/Kol/2025) was filed by the Revenue against the order dated 05.04.2025 of the CIT(A), for Assessment Year 2022-23 in respect of Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCR3964K). Per the source preview, the proceedings involved the assessee's AR placing on record documents including loan confirmations, bank statements of the lender, income tax acknowledgments of the lender, audited financials of the lender, and NBFC certificates issued by RBI in the name of certain entities.

12. Dr. Arvind Kumar R Shaw vs Union Of India

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 27 January 2026
Sections engaged: 143(3), 153C, 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 14256 of 2024) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the records in connection with the impugned order bearing No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062144854(1) passed by the CIT(A), Chennai, dated 07.03.2024, and the order of the ACIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore, dated 29.12.2021, and to consequently direct the Tax Recovery Officer (Central) to deliver the subject car to the petitioner.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 250 orders as the universal springboard for further appeal. Across all 12 cases, the Section 250 order — whether passed by a conventional CIT(A) or by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi — is the order being challenged before the ITAT or High Court. This confirms that Section 250 orders routinely generate the next round of litigation regardless of the underlying substantive issue.
NFAC orders explicitly referenced. In at least two cases (cases 2 and 5), the text preview specifically identifies the impugned order as one passed by the NFAC, Delhi, under Section 250. This signals that the rollout of faceless appellate proceedings has not reduced the volume of further appeals reaching the ITAT.
Revenue as appellant in multiple matters. Cases 4, 8, 9, and 11 show the Revenue (DCIT/DCIT Central Circle) as the party challenging the CIT(A)'s Section 250 order before the ITAT, illustrating that Section 250 appeals are not the exclusive domain of assessees — tax authorities also regularly seek ITAT review of orders they consider unduly favourable to taxpayers.
Delay condonation as a threshold issue. In case 5, the Registry flagged a delay of 557 days in filing the appeal, requiring the assessee to move a condonation application supported by an affidavit. Similarly, in case 6 the Registry pointed out a filing defect. These entries indicate that procedural admissibility — quite apart from the merits of the Section 250 order — is a live issue at the ITAT stage.
Diverse substantive contexts underlying the Section 250 orders. The CIT(A) orders challenged across these 12 rulings arise from a wide range of underlying issues: stock shortage additions found during survey (case 3), unexplained investment additions (case 10), loan credibility and NBFC documentation (case 11), reassessment limitation questions (cases 7 and 8), and a writ challenge to a Section 250 order coupled with an asset recovery direction (case 12). This diversity underscores that Section 250 is a procedural gateway that spans all categories of income-tax disputes.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is organised as a first-level research index. Each entry identifies the forum, bench, date, sections engaged, and the procedural or substantive context visible in the source preview. Because the text previews are excerpts from the opening portions of orders, they may not capture the full reasoning, the operative direction, or any subsequent stay granted by a higher forum. Researchers should always retrieve the full text of the judgment from the original court portal (indiankanoon.org, the ITAT e-filing portal, or the relevant High Court's judgment portal) before drawing any conclusion about the ratio or outcome of a ruling.

When using these entries to assess the strength of a client's or opponent's position, it is essential to verify whether the ITAT order itself has been challenged before the High Court under Section 260A of the Act, or whether an appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. An ITAT ruling that appears final at this index stage may have been stayed, reversed, or distinguished in subsequent proceedings that post-date the data captured here. Similarly, some orders listed as "Outcome not specified in source" may have a clear operative direction in the full order text that is not reproduced in the preview available to this database.

Researchers should also cross-reference relevant CBDT circulars, instructions, and press releases when analysing issues that recur across multiple entries — for example, the treatment of NFAC orders, the procedure for condonation of delay in filing appeals before the ITAT, or the application of limitation provisions in reassessment matters. Circular and instruction numbers are not cited in this index and must be independently verified against the CBDT's official publication record.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 250 Income Tax Appeals: 12 ITAT & HC Rulings (2026)