← 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

Idrish, Matawas vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Income Tax

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

ITA 818/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (Adv.) (Th.V.C.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra(Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

M/S. Karnataka Power Transmiss, Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 994/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2020-21 M/S Karnataka Power Transmiss, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, 71-71, Kptcl Employee Co-Op. Power Raichur. House, Station Road, Raichur – 584 102. Pan – Aaaak 4223 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, C.A Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavthe Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 29/04/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2024-25/1064431034(1) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is Cooperative Society Registered Under The Karnataka State Co-Operative Society’S Act 1959. The Society Is Engaged In The Activity Of Carrying Of Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 24/09/2020 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny After Issuing Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Page 2 Of 4 The Ao Observed That The Assessee Has Earned Interest Income Received From Cooperative Institutions Amounting To Rs.10,12,973/- & Dividend Income Of Rs.1,13,240/-. The Ao Relying On The Judgment Of Dcit Vs. Totagars Co-Operative Society Ltd, Has Held That Assessee Is Not Entitled For Deduction On The Amounts Of Interest Income As Well As Dividend Income. Accordingly, The Ao Assessed That Income Under The Head ‘Income From Other Sources’ & Made An Addition Of Rs 11,86,369/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250(6)Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 29/04/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064431034(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee is cooperative society registered under the Karnataka State Co-operative Society

Kome Koravadi Vividodeesha Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Udupi

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

ITA 982/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akshay K.S, C,AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for the Department, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 22/03/2024 inDIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1063205425(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee is a credit co-operative society formed for providing credit facilities

Sri Lakshmi Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd, Udupi vs. ITO Ward - 1 and Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 935/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17 Sri Lakshmi Multipurpose Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward – 1&Tps, Udupi. Floor-1, Srihari Tower, Kanakadasa Road, Udupi-576 101. Pan – Aakcs 4571 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Poojary, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 .06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavinstant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 22/03/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2023- 24/1063170077(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Assessee A Cooperative Society, Could Not File Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year. Thereafter, On The Basis Of An Information, Revealing That Assessee Has Deposited An Amount Of Rs.4,24,10,051, Ao Issued Notice U/S 148A To The Assessee. The Ao, Page 2 Of 4 While Framing The Assessment, Observed That The Assessee Is Not Qualified For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act, Relying Upon The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Citizen Co-Operative Society Reported In 397 The Ao Framed The Assessment & Made An Addition Of Rs.48,53,282/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 80P(2)(a)

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Instant appeal of the assessee is arising from the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 22/03/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023- 24/1063170077(1) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Assessee a cooperative society, could not file its return of income

D.K. Poultry, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 876/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. D.K. Poultry, Old No. 4, Bbmp No. The Deputy 48/1A/4, 1St Cross, Commissioner Of 1St Main, K.P. Road Income Tax, Vallabha Nagar, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 062. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aamfd4615N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT-DR

Date of Pronouncement : 24-06-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 11.03.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) belatedly by 26 days during

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 and Tps, Bagalkot vs. Jyoti Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Badami

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

ITA 838/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh V. Mudhol, IncomeFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 148ASection 51Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Date of Pronouncement : 24-06-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by revenue arises out of order dated 02.01.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee is a co-operative society & assessed

Laxmilal Badolla, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bangalore

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

ITA 815/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Neha Shaya, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271BSection 271D

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2016-17 The NFAC, Laxmilal Badolla, Vs. No.75, BTS Main Road, Delhi. Sankul Pharma, The Income Tax Officer, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560 030. Ward - 2(2)(7), Bengaluru. PAN – ACIPB ... SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 28/02/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1061703738(1) for the assessment year 2016-17. Page 2 of 6 Fact of the case:- 2. The assessee is an individual

Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 771/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2010-11 dated 28.2.2024 passed u/s 250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee ... file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the same after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.” 3. During the set aside proceedings, the NFAC observed that the assessee claimed that the loss of amount of Rs. 1,36,43,976/- was added back in the computation of income to arrive

Malaya Radha Krishna Akashdeep, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikaballapur

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

ITA 732/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 5.4.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee raised following grounds ... unexplained investment on account of cash deposited to assessee’s bank account. Against this assessee carried appeal before NFAC belatedly by 55 days. The Malaya Radha Krishna Akashdeep, Chikaballapur Dist. Page 3 of 5 assessee has filed an affidavit before NFAC mentioning the reasons for delay as follows

Varadaraj Sharavana, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Mysore

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

ITA 686/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CA
Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 24-06-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 22.02.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18. Page 2 of 4 2. At the outset, it is submitted that, only issue raised by assessee in the present appeal

Smt. Sharada Vivek Pawar, Dharwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 674/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Sharada Vivek Pawar, R/O. Advaith, The Income Tax 135B 2Nd Cross, Adarsh Officer, Nagar, Ward – 2(1), Hubballi – 580 032. Hubli. Vs. Dist.: Dharwad Pan: Aimpp9063G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate

Hearing : 11-06-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24-06-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order passed by NFAC Delhi dated 18.02.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19. Page 2 of 3 2. The Ld.AR at the outset submitted that there was delay of 132 days

M/S. Shree Vijayalaxmi Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

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

ITA 623/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 139Section 68Section 69A

Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.03.2024 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18. 2. The only issued involved in this appeal is addition of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period of Rs.18

Yadagere Souharda Co-Operative Society Limited., Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikkamagaluru

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

ITA 444/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.08.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 158 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit it is stated that ... assessing officer assessed income at Rs. 1,44,65,320/- 6. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The case was migrated to NFAC in terms of Notification dated 25.09.2020 by the Board. The CIT(Appeals) fixed the case for hearing on different dates, however the assessee

Dn Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 439/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18 Dn Solutions (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1)(3), No.82, Jakkur Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore. Hobli Bangalore-560 064. Pan – Aafcd 7715 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashik Shah & Sri Vinay Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri Neha Sahay, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavthe Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 17/01/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2023-24/1059828155(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee, M/S Dn Solution India Private Limited Formerly Known As Doosan Machine Tools India Private Limited Is A Company Incorporated On July 05, 2016 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Parts & Spares Used In Machine Tools & Other Business Support Service Activities. 3. The Assessee Fled Its Return Of Income For Year Under Consideration On 29/11/2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.18,58,390/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny After Issuing Page 2 Of 8 Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Made 4 Additions Mentioned As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah & Sri Vinay Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Neha Sahay, Addl. CIT (DR)

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 17/01/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1059828155(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee, M/s DN Solution India Private Limited formerly known as Doosan Machine

M/S. Prazim Trading and Investment Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1039/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Prazim Trading & Investment Vs. Dcit, Company Private Limited, Circle – 3(1)(1), 574, Next To Wipro Corporate Office, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Road, Doddakkanelli, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Aaacp 4921 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. B. K. Manjunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

called ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 1. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant vide Order dated 26.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income ... Page 2 of 9 2. That the NFAC erred in not rectifying the mistakes apparent from the record in the Order dated 10.01.2023 passed u/s 154 of the Act by the Centralized Processing Center, which mistake was continuing from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, being an erroneous

Annasaheb Ganpat Khatal, Thane, Maharashtra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result ground number one of the appeals is allowed with above direction

ITA 869/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member 1. This appeal is filed by assessee appellant against the appellate order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (the learned CIT – A) dated 8/1/2024 for assessment year 2011 – 12 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section

Rajesh Trymbak Patankar, Legal Heir of Late Trymbak Shridhar Patankar, Mumbai vs. I. T. O. 34(3)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Mumbai

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

ITA 61/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ashish A. Thakurdesai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057796212(1), dated 08.11.2023 passed against the assessment order by Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(3)(4), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

Shri Rakesh Vardhichand Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058590383(1), dated 08.12.2023 passed against the assessment order by Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai, u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Income

Philomena Paul Fernandesv, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre (ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt
Section 139Section 147Section 156Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 09/02/2024 passed by learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ... case of M/s. Nine Globe Industries Pvt. Ltd (supra) and it was decided as under:- “3. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ for short) found that the appellant has not made compliance with the provisions of Section

Ornate Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 7(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1559/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 31Section 68

order dated 30.01.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A)13, Mumbai/10196/2018–19 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) u/s. 250 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2016–17. 2 Ornate Space Pvt Ltd 2. The appellant assessee