← 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

Datta Prakash Waster, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bijapur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 627/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chethan Chogule, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.01.2024 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2020-21 on the following grounds:- “1. Because, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed the EX-PARTE order ... before the Tribunal is condoned. 6. The ld. AR submitted that assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) which was later on migrated to NFAC and notices were not served to the assessee and there was no intention to disregard the notices issued by CIT(A). The case was represented

Krishan Gas Agency, Bangalore vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3 (2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for 11

ITA 540/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykrishan Gas Agency Acit, Circle - 3(2)(1) No. B-6, Gda Shopping Complex Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road Mrcr Layout, Vijaya Nagar Vs. 6Th Block, Koramangala Bangalore 560040 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Aaffk4416P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Learned Cit(A)’) Dated 29.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060208638 (1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. The Appellate Order As Passed To The Extent Confirming He Assessment Order Is Bad In Law & Are Required To Be Quashed. 2. Without Prejudice, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partially Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer To The Extent

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “C” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey

Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiah, Mysore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukesh Patil, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “C” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey

C S Manjunath, Tumakuru vs. Income-Tax Officer, War-1 & Tps, Tumkur

ITA 171/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

Date of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.06.2024 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC dated 16.11.2023 for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. In our case the assessee neither deducted ESIC ... appeal before this Tribunal. It was explained before us that the delay was due to non-noticing of the mail sent by the NFAC as the assessee was not well versed in ITBA Portal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find

Calcom Realty Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 3(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 979/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Calcom Realty Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 34A, 2Nd Floor, Arsiwala Building, Colaba Maharashtra – 400 005 Pan: Aadcc1764B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito 3(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) dated 08.08.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 M/s. Calcom

Premji Bhuralal Gala, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA 440/Mum/2024, ITA

ITA 440/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SRDR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)

Years2013-14, 2016-17 and 2017-18, all dated 21/12/2023.The impugned order is emanated from the orders of the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre(NFAC) Delhi (in short, ‘the A.O.’) passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, dates of order24/03/2022, 22/03/2022 and 23/03/2022 for A.Ys

K & P Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1318/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi T A. No. 1318, 1319 & 1320/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The three appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / (CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/sec 250 of the Act. 2. Since issues involved in these appeals are common and identical

Citispeed Courier Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1254/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Citispeed Courier Pvt. Ltd. G-75, Mahindra Park, Lbs Marg, Narayan Nagar, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai – 400 086 Pan: Aaecc1788J ..... Appellant Vs. Ito 14(1)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 249(4)Section 250

GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) dated 28.12.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax 2 M/s. Citispeed Courier Pvt. Ltd. Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following

Inimitable Capital Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1047/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh RajagopalanFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, (SR.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula, Maharastra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(3)(1), Maharastra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3797/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

impugned order dated 21.08.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 32, Mumbai/10808/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. ITA no. 3797/MUM/2023 Rahul Gangaram Kanagandula 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Tatva Global Environment (Deonar ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

ITA 3983/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Piyush Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 555/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 142Section 148Section 68

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 12/12/2023 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Piyush Kumar vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case are, the assessee

Ujala Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Nsp Pitampura Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 43(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1850/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal in ITA Nos.1849 and 1850/Del/2024 for AY 2015-16 and 2017- 18, arise out of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] dated 18.03.2024 against the order of assessment passed u271(1)(c) and 270A of the Income ... assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

Ujala Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Netaji Subhash Place vs. ACIT Circle 40(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1849/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal in ITA Nos.1849 and 1850/Del/2024 for AY 2015-16 and 2017- 18, arise out of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] dated 18.03.2024 against the order of assessment passed u271(1)(c) and 270A of the Income ... assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

Mark Electronics Corporation, Dissolved vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ao, Accordingly

Section 147

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 18/10/2023 for Assessment Year 2016-17. Mark Electronics Corporation vs. ITO 2. At the time of hearing ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Mark Electronics Corporation vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal as well as filed additional evidences under Rule 46A, however, Ld. CIT(A) rejected

Gagan Preet Kaur Virdi, Lucknow vs. ITO-6(2), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 290/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 131Section 142Section 147Section 151Section 69A

I.T.A. No.290/Lkw/2024 1 S.A. No.10/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE

Bhagwan Das, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 308/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year 2012-13 Bhagwan Das, Vs. Ito-3(2), C/O Sanjay Saxena, 12, Hardoi Pratap Enclave Colony, Bisrat G.T.Road, Shahjahanpur Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aavpd 7007M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271F

SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee sought the permission of the Bench to withdraw the appeal by moving an application ... before your honour. The above appeal had been filed against the penalty order passed u/s 271F dated 21-06-2021 by ITO, Assessment Unit, NFAC and said penalty has been confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant aggrieved by the levy penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 271F

Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel, Thane vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 515/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel The Ito B-2003, Shreeji Heights Vs Ward-1 (Palm Beach Road, Navi Mumbai – Himatnagar Thane, Nerul Node –Iii So) Sector 46A, Plot No.1, 1A, 1B, 1C Thane 400 706 Maharashtra Pan: Abcpp 1551 G .. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Patel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/02/2024 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ao’] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Facts Of The Case: Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 80C

MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 20/02/2024 passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. CIT(A)'] in the matter of assessment order passed by the Assessing officer [hereinafter referred ... against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) with the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi[thereinafter referred to as "the Learned CIT(A)"] has erred in law and on facts as much as confirming the addition of Rs.9

Ashapura Stone Industries, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Anand

ITA 28/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 69

sake of convenience and brevity. The appeals are directed against the orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) - [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14, both dated 16/11/2023, arising out of assessment orders ... अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC), Delhi 5. "वभागीय ""त"न"ध , आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत

Ashapura Stone Industries, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Anand

ITA 27/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.27/Ahd/2024 2. Ita No.28/Ahd/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Respectively) Ashapura Stone Industries The Income Tax Officer Nh No.8, Nr. Geb Sub-Station Vs Ward-3 (Now Ward-1) Vasad – 388 306 (Gujarat) Anand Pan: Aaufa 6762 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Different Assessment Years, But Involve Common Issues (Except Quantum In Appeal) & Hence Are Being Decided Together For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Appeals Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) - [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13 & 2013-14, Both Dated 16/11/2023, Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed For Respective Assessment Years By Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 69

sake of convenience and brevity. The appeals are directed against the orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) - [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14, both dated 16/11/2023, arising out of assessment orders ... अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC), Delhi 5. "वभागीय ""त"न"ध , आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत