“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

Shri Kamlesh Purohit, Karamdi vs. ITO, Ratlam

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

ITA 150/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Purohit, L/H & Ito S/O Late Ramsingh Purohit, Ratlam Vs. 89/1, Village Karamdi, Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bbbpp5709A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 144

This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated 05.09.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi for A.Y.2009-2010. 2. There is a delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay

Alnavar Credit Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Alnavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 926/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavalnavar Credit Souhardaha The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Ltd. Ward - 1(1), Hubli Vs. 01, Indira Nagar, Alanvar 581103 Pan – Aadaa0459P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2002-23/1049609204(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 10.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Co-Operative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.10.2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld Assessing Officer (Ao) Relying Upon The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totagars Co-Operative Sale Society V. Acit [2023] 188 Taxmann.Com 282 (Sc) Disallowed The Deduction In Respect

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member and Shri Prakash

Gangapura Nagaraja Iyer Srinivasa, Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result we find that the order of the AO disallowing the purchase

ITA 640/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 44A

vouchers in respect of Cement, Sand and Jelly prepared by the appellant cannot be relied upon. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC did not consider the net profit results for the assessment year 2013- 14, which was given for comparison and without any other comparable cases disallowance ... confirmed. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC ought to have considered the nature of business of the Appellant as well the plea of the appellant that on account of disallowance on the ground of the expenses are supported only by handmade vouchers, would result improbable income

M/S. Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit So-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

ITA 1016/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavgonikoppal Primary Rural The Income Tax Officer Agricultural Credit Co-Op. Ward - 1, Madikeri Society Ltd. Vs. Main Road, Gonikoppal Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu 571213 Pan – Aaaag1109M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Chinmay Anand Jain, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2004-25/1064689295(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 07.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Agricultural Credit Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Karnataka State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 & Engaged In Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income (Roi) On 13.09.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs. 1,41,320/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Were Initiated By The Assessing Officer (Ao).

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chinmay Anand Jain, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “A” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Prakash Chand

Siddapura Taluka Agricultural Produces Co-Op Marketing Society Limited, Siddapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1002/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri M. Monish Sowkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 274Section 80P(2)(a)

Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC dated 30.3.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The only grievance ... levied penalty u/s 270A of the Act at 50% of the tax to be evaded worked out at Rs.43,550/-. On appeal, NFAC confirmed the same. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah, Mumbai

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 251/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer- Vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah 19(3)(1), Piramal Reshmo Mac Tools Centre Chamber, Room No.405, 2/10, Summit House, Lalbaug Forjett Hill Road, Opp Mumbai – 400 012 Bhatia Hospital, Mumbai – 400036 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafps2666B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(NFAC) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The return of income declaring total income of Rs.15,07,200/- was filed on 28.09.2011. The return was processed

Niyati Sutaria James, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2264/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan (Jm) I.T.A. No. 2264/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) Niyati Sutaria James Vs. Ito, Ward-23(2)(1) 302, Parimal Premises, Piramal Chambers, 17Th Road, Khar West, Parel, Mumbai- Mumbai-400052. 400012. Pan : Aaacd3816C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date Of Hearing 02.07.2024 Dateof Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 144Section 148Section 209Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

B.R.BASKARAN (AM) :- The assessee has filed appeal challenging the order dated 08-04-2024 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2016- 17. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine

Peter Andrade (Through Legal Heir), Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1860/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Nigel Peter Andrade Vs. Acit, Circle-7(1)(2) (Legal Heir Of Peter Mumbai-400020. Andrade) 204, Sumer Kendra, Pandurag Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan : Aaapa5059M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta Department By Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 56(2)(vii)

B.R.BASKARAN (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 13-02- 2024 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the AY 2012-13.The grounds of appeal, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment and the addition made

Pankaj Prashant Sinha, Thane vs. Income Tax Offier Ward 3(2) Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1728/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order. Learned Cit(A) Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal For Non Prosecution.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

order dated 28.06.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A), Thane-2/10001/2018-19 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year

Laxmibai Suresh Singh Rajput, Mumbai vs. Old ITO 41(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1136/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Mrs. Laxmibai Suresh Vs. Ito 41(2)(1) Singh Rajput, Room No. 3 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Jai Bhavani Hsg. Society, Mumbai -110001 G.K. Gokhale Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai – 400081 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajepr7466C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Raj Singh Meel

Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 40A(3)

Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) NFAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Radha Madhav Investments Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

order dated 02.08.2023 passed in appeal no. CIT(A)8, Mumbai/10275/2019–20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 2 Radha Madhav Investments

M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd.(Earlier Known As Indian Aluminium Company Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (Earlier Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8, Kolkatta), Mumbai

ITA 612/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Anish Tandon, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 70(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2664/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekanish Tandon, Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), M-205, Greater Kailash – Ii, Delhi. Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aadpt5486A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Advocate Shri Maneesh Upneja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 28.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Bad In Law, Wrong In Facts Against Natural Justice. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred By Not Allowing Foreign Tax Credit Despite The Fact That Tax Was Paid Overseas & Form 67 Was Filed Before The End Of The Assessment Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 90(2)

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 28.07.2023 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That the order under section

Amcell E Services, Patiala vs. ITO, W-2, Patiala

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1057250796(1) Dt. 20/10/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Assessee Pan Is Aaxfa0904A. The A.Y. Is 2017-18 Corresponding To The F.Y. From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. Factual Matrix 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form No. 36 Before Us. 1. That The Cit(A) Appeal Decided The Appeal Ex-Party Without Providing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard As Such The Order Is Liable To Deleted. 2. That The Addition Confirmed By Cit(A) Of Rs. 90,88,250/- Is Illegal & Against The Fact Of The Case. 3. That The Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Ao Has Accepted The Fact That The Bank Account In Question Is Already Incorporate In Personal Returns Of The Partner Shri Mukesh Kumar As Such The Same Has Resulted In Double Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 253

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

Sandeep Kumar Sanserwal, Yamunanagar vs. ITO Ward-4, Yamunagar

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 527/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

M/S. Punyabhoomi Welfare Service Society, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 528/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Ahmedabad, which has arisen from the appellate order dated 10th October, 2023 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056937257(1) passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi , which appeal 2 I.T.A No. 528/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No. M/s. Punyabhoomi Welfare Service Society v. ITO before ld. CIT(A), NFAC ... Bench, Ahmedabad, which reads as under :- 1. The Lrd. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (for short “CIT(A)”)-National Faceless Appeal Centre(for short “NFAC”) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer -CPC (for short “AO”)- Bangalore , in denying the deduction

Shrey Jitendra Panchal, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 330/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

directed against the appellate order dated 19th January, 2024 passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC),Delhi in DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023-24/1059947418(1), which in turn has arisen 2 I.T.A No. 330/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. Shrey Jitendra Panchal

Alkaben Ketulkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 287/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Alkaben Ketulkumar

Rahul Sukanraj Gadiya, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(5), Pune

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

ITA 870/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.07.2022 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, no regular

S K Bhansali & Associates, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

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

ITA 535/PUN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147ASection 148Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.02.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2006-07. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of CIT(A) / NFAC ... explained. He, therefore, made addition of the same u/s 69B of the Act. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC who sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal also sustained the addition. The Assessing Officer