← All Phrases

“national faceless assessment centre”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B1,082 judgments

The decision most relied on for national faceless assessment centre is Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras (169 Taxmann.com 542), cited in 50 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on national faceless assessment centre

Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras
169 Taxmann.com 542 · 2024 · High Court
50
citing judgments

The National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) does not have the power to issue notices under Section 148 or 148A of the Income Tax Act. Its jurisdiction for assessment or reassessment begins only from the stage of issuing notices under Section 142(1) or 143(2).

Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
174 Taxmann.com 1203 · 2025 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Where the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) have concurrent jurisdiction, a notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid, provided no prejudice is caused to the assessee.

Judgments citing national faceless assessment centre

Sunil Kumar Moolchandani, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 577/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 147Section 250

Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 01.09.2021 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [‘AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed

M/S Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt Ltfd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

261/Bang/2022 is filed by M/s. Scania Commercial Vehicles India Private Limited for assessment year 2017-18 against the Assessment Order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi on 18.02.2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the returned income

Avon Cycles Limited, G.T Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 705/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 705/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs The Pcit-I, G.T.Road, Dhandari Kalan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं/.Pan No: Aabca4140R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Pcit"), Dated 27.03.2025, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantive Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Ld. Pcit -1, Ludhiana, Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming The Jurisdiction To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act To Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) When The Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order Passed By Ld. Pcit(1), Ludhiana, Being Illegal Unjustified & Against The Provisions Of Section 263 May Be Annulled. 2. That Ld. Pcit (1) Erred In Law & On Facts In Setting Aside The Order Of Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) By Applying The Different Approach On The Same Set Of Facts On The Issues Already Considered By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 69C

assuming the jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act to set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) when the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order passed by Ld. PCIT(1), Ludhiana, being ... annulled. 2. That Ld. PCIT (1) erred in law and on facts in setting aside the order of Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) by applying the different approach on the same set of facts on the issues already considered by the Assessing Officer. ITA 705/CHD/2025

Foods and Inns Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4926/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

erred in confirming the penalty order passed u/s 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre - a. On the issue of disallowance of Rs 3,85,310/- being the interest (net) on the borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1113/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

u/s.40(a)(ia) and restricted the deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act on remaining income. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that National Faceless Assessment Centre has erred both on facts and in law in not allowing the corrected deduction u/s.80-IA including on variation of its income on account

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1112/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

u/s.40(a)(ia) and restricted the deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act on remaining income. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that National Faceless Assessment Centre has erred both on facts and in law in not allowing the corrected deduction u/s.80-IA including on variation of its income on account

DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1111/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

u/s.40(a)(ia) and restricted the deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act on remaining income. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that National Faceless Assessment Centre has erred both on facts and in law in not allowing the corrected deduction u/s.80-IA including on variation of its income on account

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1110/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

u/s.40(a)(ia) and restricted the deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act on remaining income. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that National Faceless Assessment Centre has erred both on facts and in law in not allowing the corrected deduction u/s.80-IA including on variation of its income on account

Shri Dinesh Kumar Sanghai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-23(3), Mumbai

ITA 6346/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153CSection 69

following judgments: • Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation v. LinkedIn Singapore Pte. Ltd. 180 taxmann.com 158 (SC). • Aakruti Ketan Mehta v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi 173 taxman.com 265 (Mumbai- Trib.) 7. To factually substantiate that the amount of income escaped was less than Rs.50

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

under Section 144B of the Act. The order of CBDT is clear that direction was issued about passing of "assessment orders" by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under Section 144B of the Act except in two situations, one of which is passing of assessment orders in cases assigned to International

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 386/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

under Section 144B of the Act. The order of CBDT is clear that direction was issued about passing of "assessment orders" by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under Section 144B of the Act except in two situations, one of which is passing of assessment orders in cases assigned to International

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 385/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

under Section 144B of the Act. The order of CBDT is clear that direction was issued about passing of "assessment orders" by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under Section 144B of the Act except in two situations, one of which is passing of assessment orders in cases assigned to International

Sukhdev Raj, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Sirsa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 632/CHANDI/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 253Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

nature. The proposed additional grounds are reproduced below: 1. "That the order of assessment u/s 147/144B of the Act passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre is without jurisdiction in as much as notice dated 09.02.2022 u/s 143(2) of the Act and other notices ... including show cause notice dated 19.03.2022 issued by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, on the contrary faceless regime for income escaping assessment stood notified only on 29-3-2022 2. That the notice issued on 09.02.2022 u/s 143(2) of the Act is not in accordance with CBDT notification dated

National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5987/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnational Institute Of Construction Management & Research, Walchand Centre, Walchand Terraces, Tardeo Road, Ac Market ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400034 Pan : Aaatn1348J V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 2, ……………… Respondent Cumbala Hill, Telephone Exchange, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xii)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ("CIT(A)"), the Appellant begs to prefer the present appeal on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other

Gopal Snacks Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 499/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

follows: 1On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 29/03/2022 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is grossly bad in law, since the jurisdiction of the NFAC prescribed u/s.151A had been notified w.e.f. 29/03/2022 and accordingly, the assumption ... legal issue raised by the assessee, first time stating that the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 29/03/2022 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is grossly bad in law, since the jurisdiction of the NFAC prescribed u/s.151A had been notified with effect from (w.e.f.) 29/03/2022 and accordingly

Gopal Snacks Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 498/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Rajkot Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan : Aadcg6113A (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

follows: 1On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 29/03/2022 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is grossly bad in law, since the jurisdiction of the NFAC prescribedu/s.151A had been notified w.e.f. 29/03/2022 and accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction ... legal issue raised by the assessee, first time stating that the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 29/03/2022 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is grossly bad in law, since the jurisdiction of the NFAC prescribed u/s.151A had been notified with effect from (w.e.f.) 29/03/2022 and accordingly

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited, Halkusagal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gadag

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari The Income Tax Officer, Bank Limited, Ward 1, Halkusagal. Vs. Gadag Pan: Aaaav1081D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 143Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

against Assessment Order passed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 144 Business of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (the Ld. Assessing Officer) on 22.09.2022, was dismissed. 2. The solitary issue in this Appeal is the claim of deduction

Venkata Ramana Goda, Visakhapatnam vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 489/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

effective from 27/03/2022, the notices under section 148 of the Act were statutorily required to be issued through automated allocation by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), but as in the present case the same was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), thus, the it had rendered the reassessment

A & B Associates, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

hence could not take any action as required. d) Exactly after ten months, on 06/02/2023, an intimation is seen issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi stating that the assessment has been selected for the purpose of faceless assessment as provided u/s 144B of the Act. Unfortunately, this communication ... available in the system. This was very well known to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer while the case was transferred to her from National Faceless Assessment Centre. Hence, none of the notices issued by the department was accessible by the assessee or any of its partners. As the business was closed

Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4939/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandracambridge Construction Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3) (Delhi) Private Limited New Delhi – 110002 11, Monnet House, Masjid Moth, New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc0295N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. VK Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by P a g e | 2 Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2013-14) the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO) for AY: 2013-14. 2. Heard and perused the records. The return of income of appellant company