← All Phrases

“NFAC”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B48,618 judgments

The decision most relied on for NFAC is Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (174 Taxmann.com 1203), cited in 43 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on NFAC

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.

Aggarwal v. NFAC
127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court
32
citing judgments

When initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) must specify the limb of the charge, indicating whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This requirement is essential for valid penalty proceedings.

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC
145 Taxmann.com 235 · 2022 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

The ITAT held that failure to file Form 67 by the due date for filing the return of income is not fatal to the claim for foreign tax credit. The appellate authority can condone the delay in filing Form 67.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Sanjay Gupta v. CIT
366 ITR 18 · 2014 · High Court
13
citing judgments

When the quantum of income is remanded to the Assessing Officer, the issue of penalty for undisclosed income should also be remanded to the Assessing Officer.

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC
157 Taxmann.com 749 · 2023 · Reported
11
citing judgments

A penalty levied for misreporting under section 270A is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to establish how the assessee's case falls within the specific instances of misreporting mentioned in section 270A(9). This requires an application of mind and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing NFAC

Pradeep Madhukar Thombare, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 3237/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3237/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pradeep Madhukar Thombre, V The Income Tax Officer, 101, Padmini Niwas, Prashant S Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Nagar, Ambajogai – 431517. Pan: Aappt7315L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubham N Rathi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2016-17 dated 04.11.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 read ... ld.CIT(A). Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. ITA No.3237/PUN/2025 [A] Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

Smita Narendra Sonawane, Nashik vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 3213/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3213/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smita Narendra Sonawane, V National Faceless Vadel, Malegaon, S Assessment Centre. Nashik – 423206 Pan: Ejtps9105Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16 dated 03.11.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 read ... compliance. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, Pandhurli vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3194/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3194/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, V The Income Tax Officer, 471A, Shimpi Lane, Pandurli S Nashik. B.O., Pandhurli, Nashik – 422502 Pan: Atepc5427G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 26.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 20.04.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 250Section 69A

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 26.09.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147r.w.s

Vasant Popatlal Patel, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Kudal

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

ITA 2675/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2675 & 2674/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vasant Popatlal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patel Hardware, Ward Kudal. Vaibhavwadi, Sindhudurg – 416810 Income Tax Officer, Maharashtra Sindhudurg Pan : Azdpp1903D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 80T

case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 12. Considering the totality of the case and in the larger interest

Vasant Popatlal Patel, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Sindhudurg

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

ITA 2674/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2675 & 2674/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vasant Popatlal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patel Hardware, Ward Kudal. Vaibhavwadi, Sindhudurg – 416810 Income Tax Officer, Maharashtra Sindhudurg Pan : Azdpp1903D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 80T

case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 12. Considering the totality of the case and in the larger interest

Jinesh Lalit Jain, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panvel, Raigad

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

ITA 2127/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2127/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jinesh Lalit Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Panvel. 110, Mcch Society Ltd., Panvel Raigarh, Panvel- 410206. Pan : Acwpj0187B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Manthan Ruparelia Revenue By Shri Basavaraj Hiremath : Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Considering The Assessment Order Is Bad In Law As Reopening U/S 147 Was Based Merely On Third-Party Information Without Independent Verification Or Recorded Reasons Furnished To The Appellant. 2. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred By Not Providing Proper Opportunity Breached The Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Hon'Ble Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 53,12,313/- Ignoring The Appellant'S Reconciliations, Contra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan Ruparelia
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

/NFAC for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in not considering the assessment order is bad in law as reopening u/s 147 was based merely on third-party information without independent verification ... recorded reasons furnished to the appellant. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred by not providing proper opportunity breached the principles of natural justice. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 53,12,313/- ignoring the appellant's reconciliations, contra 2 entries

Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar Seti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pimpalgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1597/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Patsanstha S Income Tax Maryadit, Department, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Maharashtra – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2016-17 dated 27.11.2024 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section

ACIT Circle-12, Pune vs. Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1375/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the name of the assessee was called. A perusal of the order sheet ... made addition of the same by observing as under: 6 7 8 9 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the assessee was not given opportunity of cross examination. Relying on various decisions he deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order

Bandreddy Bandla Reddy, Pulivendula vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kadapa

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 506/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.506/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Bandreddy Bandla The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Pulivendula. Ward-1, Pin – 516 390. Vs. Kadapa – 516 390. Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan Apzpb2735D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ms S Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: MS S Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 281(1)(b)

PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 25.10.2023 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 451 days in filing ... Income-tax portal and down loaded the order of assessment dated 30.3.2023. He also got the appeal filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals), NFAC through another local tax consultant on 22.9.2023. Reckoning the date of the order of assessment 1.e.30.3.23, there was a delay of 146 days in filing

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

Assessee are directed against the three separate Orders all dated 18.11.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-2017, 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019, respectively. ITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025 ITA.No.2147/Hyd./2025

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

Assessee are directed against the three separate Orders all dated 18.11.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-2017, 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019, respectively. ITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025 ITA.No.2147/Hyd./2025

Diabetomics Medical Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

Assessee are directed against the three separate Orders all dated 18.11.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-2017, 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019, respectively. ITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025 ITA.No.2147/Hyd./2025

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1752/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1752/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2022-2023 Gayatri Projects The Dcit, Circle-2(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. Pin - 500 082. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Ca Ch Satya Dinakar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Ch Satya DinakarFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 178(6)

PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 07.08.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2022-2023. 2 ITA.No.1752/Hyd./2025 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order

Rajashekar Reddy Anthireddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1657/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1657/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Rajashekar Reddy The Income Tax Officer, Anthireddy, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1) Vs. Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Ahxpa7026N Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Payal Gupta, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 26.09.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-2019 arising from re-assessment order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer 2 ITA.No.1657/Hyd./2025 u/sec.147 r.w.s.144/144B

Kesireddy Ravinder Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1617/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Shaik Afsar Hussain, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

ITA 1293/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Shri Shaik Afsar Hussain, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 29/06/2024 for the A.Y.2011-12. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 106 days

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Il & Fs Engineering & Constructions Co. Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 129/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Releasing The Contract Charges To The Account Of The Assessee.

Section 194ASection 194CSection 37Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 4OSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad aft fase Wet Ua, Aretetres soreaer Ud at Aopene oh

Il & Fs Engineering and Construction Company Limited(Formerly Maytas Infra Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1886/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Releasing The Contract Charges To The Account Of The Assessee.

Section 194ASection 194CSection 37Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 4OSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad aft fase Wet Ua, Aretetres soreaer Ud at Aopene oh

Nikhil Banga Kalyan Samity, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 2807/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

order is as under: “The short question falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee thereby condoning the delay in filing the Form 10B of the Act. The learned Tribunal after ... dated 3.1.2020 which admittedly gives power to condone the delay in filing Form 10B up to a period of 365 days. The CIT (Appeals), NFAC also took note of a decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries reported

Newage Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2307/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) in relation to the allotment of Shares made