← 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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3247/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

present batch of 6 appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the six separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) – Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19. The grounds raised ... 3245/Mum/2023 3. ITA No. 3245/Mum/2023 has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the order, dated 27/07/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the Assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3246/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

present batch of 6 appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the six separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) – Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19. The grounds raised ... 3245/Mum/2023 3. ITA No. 3245/Mum/2023 has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the order, dated 27/07/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the Assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3245/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

present batch of 6 appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the six separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) – Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19. The grounds raised ... 3245/Mum/2023 3. ITA No. 3245/Mum/2023 has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the order, dated 27/07/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the Assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3244/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

present batch of 6 appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the six separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) – Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19. The grounds raised ... 3245/Mum/2023 3. ITA No. 3245/Mum/2023 has been preferred by the Revenue challenging the order, dated 27/07/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the Assessee

Raoul Thackersey, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1262/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

average value of the corresponding investments for arriving at the impugned disallowance of Rs.6,93,931/- which stands upheld in the CIT(A)-NFAC’s lower appellate discussion. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to assessee’s arguments inter alia quoting it’s book results vis- à-vis balance

Arz Unique Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3595/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 25/10/2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. ARZ Unique Enterprises Ltd. vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case ... Total Income 3,53,12,966 4. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi. Before NFAC, Delhi, the assessee filed grounds of appeal and failed to prosecute the case even though the Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices which is listed in pages

Sri Vidya Gangam, Nirmal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nirmal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 626/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA Pradeep Raj Kuna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, DR

19/07/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 30/02/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Na"onal Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Sri Vidya Gangam, (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2016-17, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts

Prabhakar Jadi, Hyderbad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed in part

ITA 620/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Advocate T Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, DR
Section 142(1)

/Pronouncement on: 19/07/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 12/01/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Prabhakar Jadi (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2021-22, assessee preferred this appeal with a delay

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Kondapur vs. Hyma Developers Private Limited (Formerly Known As Dlf Homes Kokapet Pvt. Ltd.), Madhapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 543/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 08/09/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Na"onal Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of HYMA Developers (P) Ltd (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2012-13, the Revenue preferred this appeal

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Peeklon, Vidhisha vs. ACIT, Vidhisha

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 131/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 69A

Bench: These two appeals by the assesse are directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi both dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. ITA Nos.130&131/Ind/2024 Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti 2. The assessee

Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Peeklon, Vidhisha vs. ACIT, Vidhisha

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 69A

Bench: These two appeals by the assesse are directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi both dated 22.11.2023 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. ITA Nos.130&131/Ind/2024 Prathmik Krashi Sakh Sahakari Samiti 2. The assessee

Madhemangalam Primary Agriculatural Co Op Society, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 84/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.84/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 8O

JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 07.12.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.144 of the Income ... National Faceless Appeal Centre in dismissing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The NFAC was not justified in confirming the assessment order without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, since assessee had requested for adjournment for the hearing notice

Chairman Raja John, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Corporate Ward Four, Coimbatore

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

ITA 816/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.816/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chairman Raja John, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 18, Thasami Park Residency, Corporate Ward 4, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan: Aczpc4927F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ld. Ar, Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate, By Referring To Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Argued That The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ & Drew Our Attention To Para 10 Of The Assessment Order. He Argued That The Assessing Officer, During The Course Of ‘Limited Scrutiny’

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The ld. AR, Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate, by referring to ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3, argued that

Elengovan Raju, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 17(4), Chennai

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

ITA 811/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.811/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Elengovan Raju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Block 42, First Floor, Flat E Cee Dee Non Corporate Ward 17(4), No. 16, Yes, Chinnaipattinam, Ammapettai, Bsnl Building, Fifth Floor, Income Tax Kancheepuram, Chennai 603 108. Office, Bsnl Tower, Greams Road, [Pan: Ajdpr4615E] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr. L. Natarajan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Without There Being Proper Opportunity To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee raised 7 grounds of appeal, amongst which only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether

The Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporationemployees Cooperative Thrift &Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Non Coporate Ward-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 775/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.775/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporation Employees Cooperative Non Corporate Ward 9(1), Thrift & Credit Society, Ltd., 2, Tourism Chennai. Building, Walajah Road, Off Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaabt2656F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 80P

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we note that the claim of the assessee made under section 80P of the Income

Anand Annamalai, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 166/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.166/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Anand Annamalai, The Income Tax Officer, Kilakkukadu Chettikulam, Ward-1(6). Naduvalur, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem Selam, Tamil Nadu-636102. [Pan: Afapa1954N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058564205(1) dated 07.12.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017- 18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 07.12.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi

Anand Annamalai, Salem vs. JCIT, Rnge-I, Salem

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

ITA 165/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Anand Annamalai, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Kilakkukadu Chettikulam, Tax, Range-1, Naduvalur, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem Selam, Tamil Nadu-636102. [Pan: Afapa1954N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058564263(1) dated 07.12.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017- 18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 07.12.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi

Malaiyalagu Chinnakombiah, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tuticorin

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

ITA 1249/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1249/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Malaiyalagu Chinnakombiah, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/44, Lakshmi Marketing, Vs. Ward 1, Tuticorin. Inammaniachi Kovilpatti, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu-628502 [Pan: Ahwpc 6728Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca IjथG की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G.Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 15.02.2024 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 18.09.2021. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Showing Total Income Of Rs. 3,02,557/- & Assessment :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 44A

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 15.02.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income

Ramaswamy Jeevanlatha, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1204/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1204/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramaswamy Jeevanlatha, The Dy. Commissioner Of New No.31 (Old No.10-Z), Bharathi Vs. Income Tax, Park, Vii Cross, Corporate Circle-2, Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 011. [Pan: Adxpj 0081G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Ramachandran, Fca HiथF की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri G.Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 28.02.2024 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 Of The Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 24.12.2019. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S.Ramachandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT
Section 144Section 68Section 69A

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 28.02.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Tranquebar Bishop Manickam Luthern College, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions, Trichy

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

ITA 1196/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 27.02.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income