Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeNotificationITAT Issues Transfer Order for 15 Members; New Postings Effective from December...

ITAT Issues Transfer Order for 15 Members; New Postings Effective from December 8, 2025

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), under the Ministry of Law & Justice, has issued a transfer order relocating 15 Members across various benches of the Tribunal which will come into effect from December 8, 2025.

According to the notification, the transfers were finalised after consultations with the two senior-most Vice Presidents to ensure balanced distribution of judicial strength across benches.

The reshuffle includes Members from Ahmedabad, Chennai, Bangalore, Mumbai, Kolkata, Visakhapatnam, Raipur, and Delhi. Notable transfers include:

  • Shri Inturi Rama Rao, AM: From Cochin to Chennai
  • Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM: From Guwahati to Kolkata
  • Shri Balakrishnan S., AM: From Visakhapatnam to Bangalore
  • Ms. Padmavathy S., AM: From Chennai to Chennai (same capacity transfer)
  • Shri Sudhakar Prasad, JM: From Delhi to Jodhpur
  • Shri Ranjay Arora, JM: From Mumbai to Delhi
  • Shri Amitabh Shukla, AM: From Mumbai to Delhi
  • Shri Jagesh, AM: From Chennai to Mumbai
  • Shri Omkarshwar Chidara, AM: From Mumbai to Visakhapatnam
  • Shri Atkrish Kumar Mishra, AM: From Mumbai to Raipur
  • Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadikore, AM: From Ahmedabad to Mumbai

The full list details 15 transfers aimed at strengthening benches experiencing heavier caseloads.

Members under transfer have been directed to finish orders in all cases where hearings are concluded before handing over charge. Dispose of part-heard matters at their current station as far as possible.

Members listed at Sl. Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 will not be entitled to TA/DA and joining time, as per Tribunal rules. All others may avail applicable allowances.

Notification Details

Notification No.  F.46-Ad(AT)/2025 

Date: 21 November, 2025

Read More: DRI Files 2,200-Page Chargesheet Against Actor Ranya Rao and Three Others in Rs. 270-Crore Gold Smuggling Case

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for September 23, 2026.GSTMere Opting For Longer Route...

Hindu Widow’s Property Right Can Become Absolute Without Partition: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a widow’s failure to seek partition does not,...

Indian Marriage Doesn’t Automatically Bar Divorce Proceedings Abroad: Supreme Court Quashes Injunction Against UK Case

The Supreme Court has held that an Indian court cannot restrain a spouse from...

Missing Original Document Doesn’t Automatically Defeat Forgery Case: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the absence of an original document alleged to...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for September 23, 2026.GSTMere Opting For Longer Route...

Hindu Widow’s Property Right Can Become Absolute Without Partition: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a widow’s failure to seek partition does not,...

Indian Marriage Doesn’t Automatically Bar Divorce Proceedings Abroad: Supreme Court Quashes Injunction Against UK Case

The Supreme Court has held that an Indian court cannot restrain a spouse from...