This compilation indexes twelve orders pronounced by various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) between May 2026 and June 2026, each engaging Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The cases span benches at Delhi, Pune, Surat, Chennai, Bangalore, Kolkata, and Varanasi and arise from a range of substantive and procedural contexts — including construction-business additions, delay condonation applications, TDS proceedings, penalty appeals, and cash-deposit assessments. This index is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law-firm researchers who need a rapid reference to recent appellate activity under Section 250(6).

Research index only. This page catalogues publicly available ITAT orders for informational and research purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Always verify facts against the full text of the original judgment and check for any subsequent stay, reversal, or appeal before relying on any ruling.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandates that an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] must be in writing and must state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. This provision is the cornerstone of the first-appellate process: it obligates the CIT(A) — including, since the introduction of the faceless appeal scheme, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) — to record a speaking order that addresses each ground raised by the appellant and supplies reasons sufficient for the ITAT and higher courts to examine the correctness of the decision on further appeal. Where an appellate order fails to meet this standard, the ITAT may remand the matter or deal with it on merits depending on the facts.

The 12 rulings

1. China Construction Sausam (India) vs Jcit(Osd) Cc-13, Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 30 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(4), 250(6), 37(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed by the assessee — a private limited company engaged in the business of construction as a civil contractor — against the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the CIT(A)-26, Delhi for Assessment Year 2023-24 (ITA No. 1932/Del/2026). Per the source preview, the assessee had declared total income of Rs. 14,92,85,180/-, which was revised to Rs. 25,75,42,680/- during assessment proceedings, and an addition of Rs. 22,32,47,960/- was made resulting in assessed income of Rs. 48,07,90,640/-. The appeal proceeded before the Tribunal with only the Revenue represented; the appellant appeared by none.

2. Vijay Narayan Gaikwad,Pune vs ITO Ward 9(1), Akurdi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(2), 143(3), 250(6), 263
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 658/PUN/2026) pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 was filed against the NFAC order dated 15.02.2024, which arose from an assessment order passed under sections 143(3) and 263 read with section 144B of the Act. Per the source preview, the Registry pointed out that the appeal was barred by limitation, the assessee having filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 653 days; the assessee filed an affidavit citing reasons including dependence on tax consultants, post-COVID complications affecting the assessee and family members, the assessee's wife being diagnosed with cancer, and the death of the assessee's mother.

3. Mukesh Kumar,Hapur vs ITO Ward 3(4) Hapur, Hapur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(3), 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1528/Del/2025) was directed against the NFAC order dated 25.08.2023 arising from the Assessment Order dated 04.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. Per the source preview, the assessee raised grounds including that a hearing notice under section 250 dated 21/01/2021 was issued during the Corona period, and that the email address used for the notice differed from the email ID provided in Form No. 35. The Revenue's adjournment application was rejected at the hearing held on 29.06.2026.

4. Bijapure Fitness Private vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Satara

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(6), 251(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 621/PUN/2026) was filed against the CIT(A)/NFAC order passed under section 250 for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 12.08.2025, which in turn emanated from the Assessment Order dated 28.12.2018. Per the source preview, there was a delay of 101 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal; the assessee filed an affidavit citing reasons for the delay, and the Tribunal recorded that it was convinced there was sufficient cause, noting that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay, and accordingly condoned the delay.

5. Amerex (P) Ltd ,Delhi vs ACIT Central Circle- 31 , Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 1387/Del/2026) for Assessment Year 2022-23 arose from the CIT(A) appellate order under section 250 dated 09.12.2025, which in turn arose from an assessment order dated 17.03.2024. Per the source preview, the assessee had filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 34,48,566/- on 02.11.2022, and the case was selected by the Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment. The appeal was pronounced in open court on 29.06.2026.

6. Rupeshkumar Hitendrakumar vs ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 24 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals (ITA Nos. 648 & 649/SRT/2025) were filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2021-22. Per the source preview, ITA No. 649/SRT/2025 is a penalty appeal directed against the order of first appeal dated 07.04.2025 passed by the CIT(A), which in turn arose out of a penalty order dated 29.05.2023. The appeals were heard on 18.06.2026 and the order was pronounced in open court on 24.06.2026.

7. Mahamadali Adam Patel,Bharuch vs Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 24 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(6), 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 188/SRT/2024) was filed against the order of first appeal dated 15.03.2023 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, which arose from the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Per the source preview, the Registry raised a limitation issue; section 253(5) — which governs condonation of delay in filing appeals before the ITAT — was engaged alongside section 250(6). The order was pronounced in open court on 24.06.2026.

8. Shriram Namdeo Kakrale,Dindori vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 24 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 495/PUN/2026) for Assessment Year 2019-20 related primarily to an ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC confirming an addition of Rs. 9,05,151/- made by the Assessing Officer. Per the source preview, the assessee is an individual who had not filed a return of income for the relevant year; the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee had entered into substantial financial transactions including cash deposits of Rs. 8,23,000/- and interest income of Rs. 82,151/-.

9. Coimbatore Municipal vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Date: 23 June 2026
Sections engaged: 201, 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 2061/CHNY/2026) for Assessment Year 2018-19 was directed against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Chandigarh dated 26.06.2025 passed under section 250. Per the source preview, the assessee (Coimbatore Municipal Corporation) raised grounds including that the CIT(A) erred in failing to take into account interest remitted by the appellant. The case engaged section 201 of the Act alongside section 250(6), indicating the proceedings concerned TDS default or deemed-assessee liability questions.

10. Arun Machaiah Cheppudira vs Income Tax Officer Ward Madikeri

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 11 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 277/Bang/2026) for Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed against the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 passed under section 250 by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. Per the source preview, the appeal was delayed by 667 days; the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit, and the Tribunal noted that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation fell within the parameters for grant of condonation.

11. Torrent Merchandise Pvt. Ltd vs ITO, Ward 4(1), , Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 10 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 283/KOL/2025) for Assessment Year 2008-09 was filed against the CIT(A)-NFAC order dated 14.02.2024. Per the source preview, the Registry informed the Tribunal that the appeal was barred by limitation by 286 days; the assessee's petition for condonation of delay explained that the previous tax consultant had managed the income tax portal with his own contact details, leaving the assessee completely unaware of the appeal proceedings and the adverse appellate order, and that the assessee only came to know about the order subsequently.

12. Basuki Nath Vaish,Gorakhpur vs A. C. I. T., Range - 1, Gorakhpur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Varanasi
Date: 11 May 2026
Sections engaged: 68, 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 62/VNS/2023) for Assessment Year 2014-15 was preferred against the NFAC order dated 10.05.2023. Per the source preview, the assessee was a Travel Agent/Tour Operator who had filed a return of income on 29.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 10,42,110/-; the case was selected for scrutiny, and during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold 3800 shares of UNNO Industries for Rs. 13,76,500/-. Section 68 of the Act — dealing with unexplained cash credits — was engaged alongside section 250(6).

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Delay condonation as a recurring threshold issue. A significant subset of these appeals — including cases involving Vijay Narayan Gaikwad (653-day delay), Bijapure Fitness Private (101-day delay), Arun Machaiah Cheppudira (667-day delay), Torrent Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. (286-day delay), and Mahamadali Adam Patel — required the Tribunal to deal with condonation of delay applications before reaching the merits. This pattern reflects a structural lag between NFAC order pronouncement and assessee awareness, particularly in faceless proceedings.
Consultant-related unawareness as a delay ground. In at least two cases visible from the source previews (Vijay Narayan Gaikwad citing dependence on tax consultants; Torrent Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. citing the previous consultant's control over the income tax portal), the assessee's ignorance of adverse orders was attributed to their relationship with a tax professional. This is a recurring factual narrative in delay petitions before the ITAT.
Section 250(6) as a vehicle for substantively diverse appeals. While section 250(6) is procedural in nature — governing the form and content of CIT(A) orders — these twelve cases illustrate that it is cited across a wide variety of underlying substantive disputes: construction-contract additions (China Construction Sausam), cash-deposit assessments (Shriram Namdeo Kakrale), TDS/deemed-assessee proceedings (Coimbatore Municipal), share-transaction scrutiny (Basuki Nath Vaish), and penalty matters (Rupeshkumar Hitendrakumar). The section appears in appeals as the jurisdictional peg identifying the challenged order, not solely as the ground of challenge.
NFAC orders as the immediate subject of challenge. Across virtually all twelve cases, the order challenged before the ITAT is one passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (referred to as CIT(A)/NFAC). This reflects the system-wide shift to faceless first-appellate proceedings and suggests that NFAC orders are generating a substantial volume of second-appeal traffic at the ITAT.
Ex-parte and non-participation concerns. In at least two cases — China Construction Sausam (India) (appellant appeared by none at the ITAT) and Shriram Namdeo Kakrale (CIT(A)/NFAC passed an ex-parte order per the source preview) — issues of participation and ex-parte adjudication appear relevant to the appellate record. These fact patterns raise questions about the adequacy of notice and hearing opportunity at the first-appellate stage, a concern directly connected to the requirements of section 250(6).

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a starting point for legal and tax research, not a substitute for reading the full text of each judgment. Each entry above is drawn from the source preview and identity fields available in the TaxNoticeAI corpus. The source previews are excerpts and may not capture the complete reasoning, holding, or operative directions of the Tribunal. Researchers should retrieve the full order text from indiankanoon.org or the official ITAT portal before citing any case in a brief, opinion, or compliance filing.

Before relying on any ruling listed here, researchers should also verify whether the order has been challenged in further proceedings — including writ petitions before the relevant High Court or appeals to the Supreme Court — and whether any stay of the ITAT order is in operation. Tax law is fact-sensitive and jurisdiction-specific; a ruling by one ITAT bench does not bind another bench, and High Court and Supreme Court authority in the relevant jurisdiction will take precedence over ITAT orders.

Finally, researchers should cross-check applicable CBDT circulars, instructions, and notifications that may bear on the issues raised in any given case. CBDT guidance on faceless assessment and appeal procedures has evolved since the introduction of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, and the current administrative framework may affect the procedural analysis relevant to section 250(6) rulings issued under that scheme.

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(6) Income Tax Appeals: 12 Recent ITAT Rulings (2026)