“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

Anil Fireworks Factory, Virudhunagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Viridhunagar

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

ITA 1479/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 68

SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056276261 (1) dated 19.09.2023. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Virudhunagar, for the assessment

Neel Kanth Gum and Chemicals, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Office, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 805/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801Section 80I

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 06-12-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining ... refer second para at page (4) of order of ld.CIT(A)) and dismissed the appeal : GROUNDS OF APPEAL: Ground No. (1) Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) was not justified in sustaining levy of penalty of Rs.16,64,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of Act, levied on reduction in deduction u/s. 80IB

Ramnath Buildhome, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 746/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

herein below:- “ The above appeal has been filed by assessee against the ex-parte appeal order dated 26-10-2023 passed by CIT (A), NFAC, New Delhi in appeal No. 2/11119/2019-20. In this connection we have been directed to submit that for the A.Y. 2017-18, the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC

Sh. Badaluram, Fauladpur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

hereinafter “Act”) by the AO. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 2 Badalurma vs. ITO “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of order passed by AO u/s 147 of the Act ignoring that notice ... served on assessee. 2.The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in treating the return filed by assessee as non- est ignoring that return was filed late as the alleged notice u/s 148 did not came to his notice and there were technical glitches in filing

Late Sh. Birdi Chand Through Legal Heir Mukesh Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 ... name of deceased assessee even when the fact of his death was initiated to him and the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC in the name of deceased assessee is also illegal & bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

Hari Singh, Vill. Kanhai vs. I.T.O., Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshhari Singh, Vs. Ito, Vill-Kanhai, Distt,. Income Tax, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Cspps1454R

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.3615/Del/2023 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057421069(1) dated 26.10.2023 against the order of assessment passed

Inder Lata Gera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 54(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3273/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyainder Lata Gera, Vs. Ito, Ward 54 (1), D-2A, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Feroze Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar Ii, New Delhi – 110 024. (Pan : Auipg5853F)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Date of Order : 09.04.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 22.09.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “GROUND NO. I: THE ORDER PASSED

Balbir Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(5), Delhi

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

ITA 3117/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyabalbir Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 68 (5), 1129, Gali No.17, Delhi. Near Purani Chopal, Rithala, New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Asaps4872N)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 69A

Date of Order : 09.04.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 20.09.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. The ld. Assessing Officer

Barkat Raj Capital P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1364/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2017-18. M/S Barkat Raj Capital Private Limited Vs Income-Tax Officer, 416, Ground Floor, Bhera Enclave, Ward 4(2), New Delhi. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 Pan- Aaacr9530K Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By Shri R.P. Mall, Adv. Department Represented By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2024

Section 143(3)

SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017- 18. 2. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. For the assessment year under dispute the assessee filed

Raikanti Krishna Reddy, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 258/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Raikanti Krishna Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18-392/B, Shadnagar, Ward – 1, Bhagiratha Colony, Mahabubnagar. Mahabubnagar, Telangana – 509216. Pan : Alkpr2991J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2024

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.AR

Section 142Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.20.02.2024 invoking proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read ... passed assessment order on 02.09.2021. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Before me, ld.AR submitted that the assessee has failed to provide necessary information and appear before the lower authorities

Meenakshi Ventures and Holdings India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Meenakshi Ventures & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Holdings India Private Ward – 16(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Plot No.119, Meenkashi, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Telangana – 500033. Pan : Aagcm4362C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sai Sari Konda, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sari Konda, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.AR

Section 10Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 2Section 250

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.20.02.2024 invoking proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read ... Feeling aggrieved with the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who granted part relief to the assessee. 2 5. Before me, ld.AR submitted that the assessee was not covered at the relevant point

Maddikunta Sanjeeva Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Maddikunta Sanjeeva Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ward – 1, Hno11-222/1, Sangareddy. Shanthinagar Colony, Patancheru, Hyderabad – 502319, Telangana. Pan : Eiyps0245H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kali Kiran Kumar Kovvada, Ca. Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kali Kiran Kumar KovvadaFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.AR

Section 147

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.10.01.2024 invoking proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under ... r.ws. 144 of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Before me, ld.AR has submitted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer had issued 148 notice

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad, Kondapur Hyderabad vs. Sangam Wires, Kalaburagi

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

ITA 371/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.356/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sangam Wires Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1 Pan:Acnfs5309K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sangam Wires Ward 11(1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acnfs5309K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,CIT(DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

assessee and the 2nd one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 10.05.2023 of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi relating to A.Y.2021-22. For the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Page ... Tribunal in the case of Lifeline Drugs and Intermediates (P) Ltd vide order in ITA No.5535/Mum/2007. 7. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition limited to the extent of bringing the GP rate of purchases at the same rate of other Page

Sangam Wires, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 356/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,CIT(DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 146/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 146/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd.,……………………..Appellant T-68, Tegharia Main Road, Post-Hatiara, Behind Lokenath Mandir, Kolkata-700059, West Bengal [Pan:Aadcr6464K] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….…Respondent Circle11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115Section 15Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National 1 Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.11.2023 passed for A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Though the assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, but the solitary substantial issue raised in these ... Income Tax, Circle11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT- , Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Jyoti Rakesh Roongta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(5), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 143/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jyoti Rakesh Roongta,…………………………….Appellant Suite-F, 4Th Floor, Mission Court, 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Adjpr8090H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-43(5), Kolkata, 3, Government Place, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 10(38)(b)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50C

appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National 1 Jyoti Rakesh Roongta Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.01.2024 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, but her grievances revolve around a single issue, namely whether ... Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(5), Kolkata, 3, Government Place, Kolkata-700001 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT- , Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Durgamata Coomercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 864/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

directed against separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 27.06.2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income ... order forwarded to: 1. Durgamata Commercial Pvt. Ltd., 125/A, Cotton Street, Kolkata-700 007. 2. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Durgamata Coomercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Sunil Khaitan, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(2)Section 68

assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total

Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Haldia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(1), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 55/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, Addl. CIT, D/R

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

business of banking/providing credit facility was not allowed as per order u/s 250 by the Ld. CIT appeal NFAC, of appellant assessee JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act engage in the business of supporting agricultural development