“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aravind Arunachalam Vellore, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2856/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaravind Arunachalam Vellore, A 603, Zeel Darshan, A. S. Marg Near Custom Colony, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan No. Acmpv9998A ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 26(1) (2) R. No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra East Maharashtra -400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichand A/W ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194HSection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

pronouncement : 02/09/2024 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) Delhi dated 19.03.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the 2 Aravind Arunachalam Vellore Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee

Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed in the result all other Grounds raised by the Assessee need not to be disposed off

ITA 245/MUM/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd. 6-D-603, Prem Nagar, S.V.P. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan No. Aaafv3003E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito 9 (2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakkani and Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 68o

pronouncement : 02/09/2024 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) Delhi dated 28.11.2023passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following ... grounds of appeal: - 2 M/s. Jas Trading Pvt. Ltd. I. Reopening is bad in law 1. the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to appreciate that; the recorded reasons were for an estimate of commission income of 1% of the total transactions amounting to Rs.4, 75,100/-, whereas

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyan vs. Vip Clothing Limited, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 2247/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

appeal by the Revenue and Cross Appeal by the assessee are against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 29.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The grounds raised by the Revenue C.O. filed by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4.1, Thane vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Maryadt

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2241/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR

Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

raising the following grounds – ITA No. 918/Mum/2024-AY-2017-18-Assessee “Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT (A)], the Appellants submit the following grounds for your sympathetic consideration; which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to each ... raising the following grounds – ITA No. 917/Mum/2024-AY-2018-19-Assessee “Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT (A)], the Appellants submit the following grounds for your sympathetic consideration; which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to each

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Thane vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedi Maryadit, Vasai

ITA 1961/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.918/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Vs. Ito, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W), Maharashtra-400604. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.2441/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W), Maharashtra-400604. Vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.917/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane (W), Maharashtra- 400604. 2

Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

raising the following grounds ITA No. 918/Mum/2024-AY-2017-18-Assessee "Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT (A)], the Appellants submit the following grounds for your sympathetic consideration; which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to each

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Veer Energy and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1885/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)

Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 25.01.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeals: Veer Energy and Infrastructure

Ashraf Abdul Gani Khan, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1237/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dt. 18.01.2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

Meher Ghanshym Lalwani, Santacruz West, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24 (2) (5), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1203/MUM/2024[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 68Section 69C

आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 05/03/2024 by NFAC Delhi [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)] pertaining to AY 2011- 12. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that

Hardoi District Cane Growers Co-*Operative Society Limited, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi-1

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

ITA 56/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Hardoi District Cane Growers V. The Ito 3(2) Co-Operative Society Ltd. Hardoi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Aabah4032R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.12.2023, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-society filed its return of income ... making disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act at Rs.34,50,823/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed on account of the fact that there was a delay of 40 days in filing

Kamal, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Range -1(4), Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 384/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Nfac. However, The Appeal Before The Nfac Came To Be Dismissed For The Reason Of Non-Compliance. 4. Now, The Assessee Has Approached This Tribunal Challenging The Dismissal Of His Appeal By The Nfac By Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Upholding Addition Of Rs.33.30,000/- Under Section 69A Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 Made By The Id. Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Appellate Order Which Is Contrary To The Facts & Law. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal Or Raise Any New Ground Appeal During The Pendency Of Appeal.

Section 69A

No.384/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 3 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the NFAC by raising ... looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. 6. Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the NFAC. 7. I have heard

Raj Mani Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 382/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Mani Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) D-124, Harihar Nagar Lucknow Indira Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bcopr2293D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Person, E-Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 1.8.2017, Declaring A Total Taxable Income Of Rs.2,87,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment, Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,45,850/- By Making Addition Under Section 69A Read With Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.16,58,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited During Demonetization. 3. Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Under Section 246A Of The Act Before The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow-1 On 18.12.2019. Later On, The Appeal Migrated To Nfac, Who Vide Its

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 246ASection 69A

been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2023, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a salaried person, e-filed his return of income ... preferred an appeal under section 246A of the Act before the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow-1 on 18.12.2019. Later on, the appeal migrated to NFAC, who vide its ITA No.382/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 impugned order dated 31.10.2023 dismissed assessee’s appeal for want of prosecution by the assessee

Geeta Sharma, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-1(4), Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 373/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Geeta Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 1(4) C/O M/S Neeraj Foods Trading Shahjahanpur Company Moh. Matani Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Beeps6201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.4.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Her Return Of Income In Itr-3 On 31.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,69,770/- After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80C & 80Tta Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.1,53,970/- Out Of Gross Total Income Shown At Rs.7,23,739/- Consisting Of Profits & Gains From Business At Rs.7,19,769/- & Income From Other Sources At Rs.3,970/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.17,97,270/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs.2,37,412/- On Account Of Interest Paid

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 80C

been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.4.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed her return of income ... addition of Rs.9,90,091/- on account of shortfall in gross profit. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal

Lal Jeevan Bhard, Lucknow vs. ITO, Lucknow

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

ITA 325/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Lal Jeevan Bhardwaj V. Ito 6(2) 448/119/33, Behind Kalyangiri Lucknow Mandir Chowk Nagariya 2 Anshik Lucknow Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.12.2022, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter called “ld. CIT(A)”) for Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return ... Rs.6,55,912/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed on account of assessee’s failure to submit any documentary evidence to disprove the additions made

Kashmiri Lal, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Kanpur

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

ITA 293/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Kashmiri Lal V. The Ito 126/33, Block Q Ward 2(2) Govind Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Asarpl8577C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kashmiri

Shailesh Kumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. CIT (A), Lucknow

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

ITA 190/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shailesh Kumar Gupta V. Cit(A) 584Ka/66, Behind Masjid Lucknow Jail Road, Bangla Bazar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Alvpg5898C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri A. K. Dubey, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Dubey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 09.02.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Proprietor of M/s Seema Traders is engaged ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). ITA No.190/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal

Omsons Marketing Private Limited Quila Chowk Faridkot, Punjab vs. Assessing Officer NFAC Delhi Jurisdiction AO DCIT CC-2 Sco-1- 6 3Rd Floor, Opp. Bvm School Ludhiana, Punjab

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

ITA 87/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Cit(A), Since The Counsel The Counsel Of The Assessee Did Not Intimate About The Date Of Hearing Of The Case & A Such There Was A Reasonable Cause In Not Submitting Reply Before The Appellate Authority. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Following Additions:- I) Addition Of Machinery Repair & Consumable Rs. 15,500/- (Para 3.1 Of The Assessment Order)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

30/08/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi dt. 04/12/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That

The Punjab Livestock Development Board, Mohali vs. Dict(Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, for all the assessment years, i

ITA 512/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 510 To 512/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 ( Physical Hering ) The Punjab Livestock Vs. The Dcit Exemptions, बनाम Circle-1, Development Board, Chandigarh Livestock Bhawan, Sector 68, Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt8377Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sachit Singla Adv. & Shri T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr & S.A. Nos. 14 & 15/Chd/2024 ( In Ita Nos. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 510 & 511/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-2013 ( Hybrid Hearing ) Vs. The Dcit Exemptions, The Punjab Livestock बनाम Circle-1, Development Board, Chandigarh Livestock Bhawan, Sector 68, Mohali 160062 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabtt8377Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sachit Singla Adv. & Shri T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Singla AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 148

Assessee for the different assessment years against the separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, as per the following details: Sr.No. ITA No. Assessee A.Y. CIT(A) order dated 1. 510/Chd/2024 The Punjab 2011- 13.01.2024 Livestock 12 Development Board, Mohali