“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

Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahaakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1269/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053835392(1), dated 21.06.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard

Chinta Sravan Kumar, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 161/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Mr. Chinta Sravan KumarFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Subba Raju, DR

/Pronouncement on: 18/03/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 18/12/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Chinta Sravan Kumar (the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal with

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati vs. Devapatla Subhadramma, Tirupati

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

ITA 581/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Devapatla Ward – 1 (1) Subhadramma Tirupati Tirupati Pan:Ayqps6231H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144

/ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29.09.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee derives income from house property and filed her return ... unexplained cash deposit and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC gave part relief to the assessee. So far as the addition of Rs.3,35,75,480/- is concerned, the learned CIT (A) NFAC restored the issue

Konathala Nooku Naidu, Anakapalle vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 269/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Konathala Nooku Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Anakapalle. Ward-1, Pan: Aczpn 4551 C Anakapalle. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 18/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

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

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055591804(1), dated 30/08/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income ... vide order dated 26/12/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. On appeal, the assessee made various submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC but the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not consider the assessee’s submissions

Singur Thana L S P A Co-Operative Marketing Society Lrd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-23(1), Hooghly.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 910/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Assistant Commissioner Of Marketing Society Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 23(1), C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Hooghly. Vs. Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001. (Pan: Aabas0029B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80PSection 97(1)Section 97(1)(b)

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/250/2022-23/1050783410(1) dated 15.03.2023 passed against the assessment order by ACIT, circle-23(1), Hooghly u/s. 143(3) of the Income ... Singur Thana LSPA Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. AY 2016-17 Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //// By Order

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 12.06.2023 for the AY 2014-15. 2. At the outset, we note that the Registry ... Institute of Indian Foundrymen, IIF Centre, 335, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata-700107 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Star Tradecom Private Limited., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 52/KOL/2023[2009-2010]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

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/250/2022-23/1048211740(1) dated 23.12.2022 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata u/s.144/263/147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... dated 31.03.2014 for AY 2009-10. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1.For that the Ld CIT(A)-NFAC erred in passing an ex parte order, where no notice served on appellant, despite the fact that it was specifically mentioned that no notices/ communication should

Babusona Monndal., Bardhaman vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Bardhaman.

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1083/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 1083/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Babusona Mondal,………………………………..….Appellant Chupi, Purbasthali, Bardhaman-713513, West Bengal [Pan:Amlpm4811A] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-1, Bardhaman, Aayakar Bhawan & Annexe, Court Compound, Kachari Road, Burdwan-713101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amuldeep Kaur, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 69A

Member:- The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 7th September, 2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. 1 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Babusona Mondal 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken ... Circle-1, Bardhaman, Aayakar Bhawan & Annexe, Court Compound, Kachari Road, Burdwan-713101, W.B. (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT- , Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Seema Sinha, Indore vs. ITO-4(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 499/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

Section 147Section 148

Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 20.10.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances

Sohanlalji Ashok Seervi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 285/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

PERLAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against ex-parte order passed by NFAC u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) vide order dated 30.10.2023 with DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057492214(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. The sole issue ... completed u/s 144 of the Act and before the ld. CIT(A), the case was also decided ex-parte by the NFAC/CIT(A). The NFAC has issued various notices which were not responded. However, considering the prayer of the ld. A.R. for the assessee and in the interest of justice

Akthar Fathima, Holenarasipura vs. ITO, Ward-1 and Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 262/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian. S, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Choudhry, JM: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment

M/S. Unified Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 135/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian. S, Ld. JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Choudhry, JM: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

T P Ostwal & Associates LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, addition of INR 67,58,815/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are allowed while Ground No

ITA 3746/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul T. SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 40

present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, 1. dated 14/09/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

Jay Mataji Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3723/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 02/08/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. The only issue which has been raised is on account of addition of Rs.1,98,500/- deposited

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nilesh Shantilal Tank (E-Filing), Borivali (W)

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

ITA 3607/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby dispose of this appeal by hearing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nilesh Shantilal Tank (E-Filing), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

ITA 3598/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Akshar Shanti Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed

ITA 3590/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250