← 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

Ashu Mathur, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-71(3), Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 623/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

SAKTIJIT DEY, VP: These appeals, filed by the assessee, are against two separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, affirming penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. 2. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident

Ashu Mathur, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-71(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 622/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

SAKTIJIT DEY, VP: These appeals, filed by the assessee, are against two separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, affirming penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. 2. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident

Ultimate International Private Limited, Delhi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangaluru, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2780/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.08.2023. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The order passed by the Honorable National Faceless Appeal Center ("NFAC") and the learned Assessing Officer ... principle of equity and natural justice. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, Hon'ble NFAC has passed the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 2 Ultimate International Pvt. Ltd. 3. That on the facts and circumstances

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Danabhai Bharvad, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 844/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)Section 250Section 28

passed by ld. I.T.A No. 844/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. 2 Danabhai Bharvad v. ITO Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals),NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1061662541(1), which appeal before ld. CIT(A) in turn has arisen from

Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 655/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 655/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Bhupendrabhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Punjabhai Patel Income Tax Vs. Near Towers Dabhasa, Tal: Circle-1(3), Baroda Padra, Vadodara, Gujarat, 391440 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amgpp7772G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Sanjay R Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashesh Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 26/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 06.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri Ashesh Rajesh Revar, Sr. DR
Section 54F

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 06.10.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal: “1. The Learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Anilkumar Ochhavlal Desai, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 250Section 68

आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARHTA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in proceeding u/s 250 vide order dated 21/12/2023 passed for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Jayant Shantilal Sanghvi, Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1134/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1134/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Jayant Shantilal Sanghvi बनाम/ Pratham, Makrand Desai Income Tax Vs. Vadodara Road, Gotri, Vadodara, Gujarat 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anrps3651F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ashesh R Rewar, Sr. Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milin Mehta, A.R. 22/07/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, E-Filed Return Of Income For A.Y. 2016-17 On 29.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,82,36,020/-. In The Course Of Assessment, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Declared Exempt Income Of Rs.4,02,26,125/- In Respect Of Profit

For Respondent: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 06.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, e-filed

Dilip Rangnath Pagare, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Aurangabad

ITA 972/PUN/2024[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Dilip Rangnath Pagare Plot No. 23, Gut No. 105, Pwd Housing Society, Aurangaba-431001. Pan: Bjcpp2914G. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(12), Aurangabad. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062379260(1) Dt. 11/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(12), Aurangabad [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2012-13 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062379260(1) dt. 11/03/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward ... vide assessment order dt. 28/11/2019. When matter travelled up in appeal, for the non- prosecution of appeal by the assessee the Ld. NFAC also confirmed the addition ex-parte and upheld the action of Ld. AO for assessee’s failure to substantiate the nature & source of cash deposits by placing

Avinash Rajendrakumar Gholap, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 861/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.861/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Avinash Rajendrakumar Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Gholap, A/P Gholapwadi, Uddhat Taluka Indrapur, Pune- 413103. Pan : Abjpg2776M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. S. Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.04.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Passing Order Wherein Specific Request Of Adjournment Was Made By Assessee & Same Was Not Rejected By Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac).

For Appellant: Shri S. S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144B(1)(xxiv)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

grounds of appeal :- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in passing order wherein specific request of adjournment was made by assessee and same was not rejected by Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). 2 2. Ld Assessing Officer erred in law in making addition amounting to Rs. 1,44,43,541/- as unexplained money u/s 69A in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Ld Assessing Office erred in law in passing the Final Assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Pawar Patkar Construction Pvt. Ltd, Nashik

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

ITA 834/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148

arbitrary. In the 4 circumstances, the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the file of NFAC for denovo disposal of appeal by following strictly the directions of the Tribunal issued in earlier round of proceedings before this Tribunal

Shr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 507/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(c)

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (“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 02.02.2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under : “ 1. The order passed

Surenderbabu Padakanti, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 9(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 396/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Surenderbabu Padakanti, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Abopp0535C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal Appeared For Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal appeared for ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, SR.AR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

filed by Surenderbabu Padakanti (“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 16.01.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is seen that, there is a delay ... order is ex-parte, illegal and arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs.45,10,000/- by invoking the provisions of Sec. 69A rws 115BBE

Posina Jaya Lakshmi, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.120/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Posina Jaya Lakshmi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-2(1), Pan: Cakpp2158N Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 26/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060861422(1), dated 13/02/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 144 of the Income ... dated 25/12/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 4 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC called for the information with regard to the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization. In response

The Eluru Co Operative House Mortgage Society Ltd, Eluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.10/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Eluru Cooperative House Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mortgage Society Limited, Eluru. Eluru. Pan: Aacat0060G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 26/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. Pr. CIT ought to have known that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer NFAC U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act is neither erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue hence the impugned order ... view that interest income should be allowed as deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and thereby the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has rightly held by deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO and hence we find no infirmity in the order

Hirak Sarkar, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir. 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 892/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld Cit(Appeals) As His Mother Was Not Well Because Of Prolonged Disease Was Going Under Medical Supervision And

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.02.2024 arising out of Assessment Order dated 06.12.2018, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds

Shreekant Ray, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 824/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sharma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Bhandary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amuldeep Kaur, Additional CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. AO and also before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) showing that the opening cash in hand of the appellant as on 8.11.2016 was for Rs.18,53,843/-.

Section 143(3)Section 250

directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.02.2024 arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.12.2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds

M/S. Nexcare Agency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 35/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Nexcare Agency Pvt. Ltd., 18/1, Olabibitola Lane, LP-228/4, Howrah, West Bengal, 711104. 2. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Reji Krishnan, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 267/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Soundararajan K, Judicial Member