← 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

Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2570/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2570/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari The Ito बनाम/ Mandli Ltd. Ward-1(9) V/S. At Nana Jadra Village Bhavnagar – 364 001 Mahuva Bhavnagar – 364 290 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaxas 2474 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nemish Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/10/2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shree Nana Jadra Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nemish Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr.DR
Section 69A

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28/10/2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds ... condonation application 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, is erroneous in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: a. the settled legal position

Milan Seva Trust, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2557/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2557/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Milan Seva Trust The Ito बनाम/ A-38, Gulab Park Rapna Ward-3(3)(2) V/S. Nagar Ahmedabad Oppal Madina Masjid Sarkhej Road, Juhapura Ahmedabad – 380 055 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aactm 5150 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M. Savavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Savavda, Sr.DR

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 19/12/2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. Milan Seva Trust vs. ITO Asst. Year ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु' अपील 4. ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Prakash Babulal Bhandari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2546/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2545/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2013-14 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2546/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2017-18 Prakash Babulal Bhandari The Ito बनाम/ 4, 2Nd Floor, Surbhi Apartment Ward-3(3)(2) V/S. 13, Shrenik Society Ahmedabad Naranpura Chart Rasta Ahmedabad – 380 012 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaupb 2933 R (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit B. Soni, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 02/12/2025 & 10/10/2025 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2013- 14 & 2017-18 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit B. Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr.DR

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 02/12/2025 & 10/10/2025 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013- 14 & 2017-18 respectively. ITA Nos.2545 & 2546/Ahd/2025 Prakash Babulal Bhandari ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ& / The Appellant 2. $'थ& / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु) / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु) अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi िवभागीय $ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 5. , , गाड- फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स'ािपत $ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Prakash Babulal Bhandari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2545/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2545/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2013-14 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2546/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2017-18 Prakash Babulal Bhandari The Ito बनाम/ 4, 2Nd Floor, Surbhi Apartment Ward-3(3)(2) V/S. 13, Shrenik Society Ahmedabad Naranpura Chart Rasta Ahmedabad – 380 012 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaupb 2933 R (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit B. Soni, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 02/12/2025 & 10/10/2025 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2013- 14 & 2017-18 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit B. Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr.DR

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 02/12/2025 & 10/10/2025 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013- 14 & 2017-18 respectively. ITA Nos.2545 & 2546/Ahd/2025 Prakash Babulal Bhandari ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ& / The Appellant 2. $'थ& / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु) / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु) अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi िवभागीय $ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 5. , , गाड- फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स'ािपत $ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Kishorkumar Kotumal Changlani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1477/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1477/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Kishorkumar Kotumal The Ito बनाम/ Changlani Ward-7(2)(1) V/S. Block No.413 B Ahmedabad – 380 015 Sardarnagar Pani Ni Tank Sardarnagar Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acvpc 3793 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 23/05/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Kishorkumar Kotumal Changlani Vs. Ito Asst.Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 23/05/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. #थ" / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु% / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु% अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , गाड" फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स#ािपत ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Nishkam Shewa Mandal, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1430/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1430/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Nishkam Shewa Mandal The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ A-4, Kotarpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Hansol Ahmedabad – 382 475 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatn 2481 J (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Trust Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Dated 17/12/2024, Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Approval Under Clause(Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). Nishkam Shewa Mandal Vs. Cit(E)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. #थ" / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु% / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु% अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi िवभागीय ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण 5. अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , गाड" फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स#ािपत ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya, Iqbalgadh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpure, Palanpur

Appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2086/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2076/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2085/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 3. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2086/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2018-19 1. Agrawal Rajeshkumar 1. The Dy. Cit बनाम Babulal Huf Circle, Gandhinagaar / Prop. Shri Mahavir Trading Co. Income Tax Office V/S. Iqbalgadh, Amirgadh Udhyog Bhavan, Banaskantha – 385 130 Gandhinagar 382 011 Pan; Aacha 5546 F

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

appeals have been preferred by two different assessees against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16/02/2024 in the case of Agrawal ITA Nos.2076, 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ) / The Appellant 2. #%थ) / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु* / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु* अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , गाड. फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya, Iqbalgadh vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circl, Palanpure, Palanpur

Appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2085/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2076/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2085/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 3. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2086/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2018-19 1. Agrawal Rajeshkumar 1. The Dy. Cit बनाम Babulal Huf Circle, Gandhinagaar / Prop. Shri Mahavir Trading Co. Income Tax Office V/S. Iqbalgadh, Amirgadh Udhyog Bhavan, Banaskantha – 385 130 Gandhinagar 382 011 Pan; Aacha 5546 F

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

appeals have been preferred by two different assessees against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16/02/2024 in the case of Agrawal ITA Nos.2076, 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ) / The Appellant 2. #%थ) / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु* / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु* अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , गाड. फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF, Amirgadh vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2076/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2076/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2085/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 3. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2086/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2018-19 1. Agrawal Rajeshkumar 1. The Dy. Cit बनाम Babulal Huf Circle, Gandhinagaar / Prop. Shri Mahavir Trading Co. Income Tax Office V/S. Iqbalgadh, Amirgadh Udhyog Bhavan, Banaskantha – 385 130 Gandhinagar 382 011 Pan; Aacha 5546 F

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

appeals have been preferred by two different assessees against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16/02/2024 in the case of Agrawal ITA Nos.2076, 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ) / The Appellant 2. #%थ) / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु* / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु* अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , गाड. फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Narottam Atmaram Warde, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 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.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

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.2012-13 dated 08.08.2024 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 144 R.W.S

M/S. P.P. Financiers, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 222/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चेनई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

M/S. P.P. Financiers, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Chennai

ITA 221/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चेनई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक