← 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

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 663/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &
Section 23Section 3

separate but iden"cal orders, all dated 31/10/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Na"onal Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund (“the assessee”) for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19, assessee preferred

Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 662/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR) &
Section 23Section 3

separate but iden"cal orders, all dated 31/10/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Na"onal Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund (“the assessee”) for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19, assessee preferred

Guna Adinarayana, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 142/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

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”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060595946(1), dated 7/2/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 271D ... section 269SS of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the penalty levied U/s. 271D of the Act by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 124/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

wise adjudication is given in the following paras. 2. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, dated 31/01/2024. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm, engaged in the business of construction of residential flats ... addition of Rs. 3,51,78,030/-. Aggrieved by the of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC belatedly with a delay of 273 days. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 123/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

wise adjudication is given in the following paras. 2. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, dated 31/01/2024. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm, engaged in the business of construction of residential flats ... addition of Rs. 3,51,78,030/-. Aggrieved by the of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC belatedly with a delay of 273 days. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal

Tadikonda Vamsi Mohan Krishna, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 235/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

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/250/2023-24/1054493823(1), dated 20/07/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income ... show cause notice. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the 3 Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee contested the validity of the assessment order as no notice U/s. 143(2) was issued on the assessee

Hpc Employees Cooperative Society Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.144/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Hpc Employees Cooperative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaah5103. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

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/250/2022-23/1050477363(1), dated 07/03/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income ... Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC the assessee made written submissions stating that the assessee is an Employee Cooperative Society providing banking / credit facilities to its members and hence

Chetak Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 97/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

unusual history regarding persuasion of the same before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)']. In fact, it is evident from a perusal of the orders of the authorities below that ... grievances through the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 81,98,880/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Income

Bcda Members Benevolent Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 787/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.787/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bcda Members Benevolent Trust ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabtb0860C) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 24.07.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2020-21 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 07.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By Ao, Cpc Dated 26.04.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234FSection 250

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 07.03.2024 arising out of the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act by AO, CPC dated ... BCDA Members Benevolent Trust “1. That the Order in Appeal passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice. 2. That your appellant submits that the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed your appellant's Appeal Petition

Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 710/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 263

directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 07.02.2024 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 144 read with Section 263 read with Section 144B ... Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd., 23, Pankaj Mullick Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700019. 2. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Deepak Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 61(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 704/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 10Section 148

contains a copy of the Federal bank account for the relevant financial year. Before the ld. AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] the appellant had claimed that the company in which he was a director had become ... Deepak Singh, 8/2, Kiron Shankar Roy Road, Near High Court Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001. 2. ITO, Ward-61(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Kaushalya Singha, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

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

ITA 611/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 5Section 69A

directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 05.02.2024 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B ... Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite - 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069. 2. ITO, Ward-1(4), Siliguri. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Jitendra Kumar Jain(HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the start of the appellate proceedings or in course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

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 06.11.2023 arising out of Penalty Order dated 06.09.2021, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following

Durgamondap Samabay Krishi Unnayn Samati Ltd., ITO, Ward No-49(1), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward No- 49(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1153/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

Counsel for the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay as under: “1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 23.02.2023 for the AY: 2018-19 against an intimation order u/s 143(1) was received by the assessee on or around 25.02.2023 through email ... Krishi Unnayn Samiti Ltd., Durga Mondap, Saneshkh Ali, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, 743446. 2. ITO, Ward No- 49(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Vindas Chemical Industries Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT ACIT 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 157/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Vindas Chemical Industries Dcit-Acit 4(1), Private Limited, Indore बनाम 102, Prabhudeep Apartment, / Indapuri Colony, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aabcv1288P Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, disallowance of Rs.2,02,633/- is also wrong, illegal, and unjustified. 2. The learned CIT (A), NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that in point 20(b), the actual amount paid in column shows higher amount than the employee's contribution

Incometax Officer, Exemption- Ward-2, Chennai. vs. Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 699 & 700/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer Tamilnadu Advocate Welfare V. (Exemptions), Fund, High Court Campus, Ward-3, High Court, Chennai. Chennai – 600 104. [Pan: Aaatt-6317-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 6(2)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by the revenue are filed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, vide order dated 17.01.2024. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Tamil Nadu Advocate Welfare Fund, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 699/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 699 & 700/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer Tamilnadu Advocate Welfare V. (Exemptions), Fund, High Court Campus, Ward-3, High Court, Chennai. Chennai – 600 104. [Pan: Aaatt-6317-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 6(2)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by the revenue are filed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15, vide order dated 17.01.2024. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake

Kavitha, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 596/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 596/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kavitha, V. Tax, Flat No. 7, Salmas Trust Castle, Non Corporate Circle 19(1), 4 Puliyur 1St Street Main Road, Chennai. Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Afspr-2701-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjunraj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal instituted by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 12.01.2024. 2. The only issue in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee ... NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,96,39,291/- being the cash deposits presumed to have :-2-: ITA. No:596/Chny/2024 been made in SBNs during demonetization period as unexplained cash credit in erroneously invoking Section 68 in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons

Joint Commossioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 19/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M. Murali, CITFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 21.09.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 18/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M. Murali, CITFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viiia)

JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 21.09.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income