← 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

Express Cargo Carriers Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 99/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 194CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 40Section 5

SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “I. Addition on account ... Remand Report which was also there on record but due to the fact that the case was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, the two notices which were issued was not received by the assessee and without taking cognisance of the assessee’s additional evidence and not giving

Vivek Vaman Velankar, Ratnagiri vs. The ITO Ward 1, Ratnagiri

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 158/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 144Section 250(6)

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058132923(1), dated 22.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard Both ... parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting his contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge. Shri Basavaraj could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the learned NFAC

Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T and N T Path Mydt Pandharpur, Pandharpur vs. ITO, Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 804/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 8OSection 8Q

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11.05.2023 emanating from assessment order dated 30.07.2019passed under section 144 r.w.s 144A

Ajayshree Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1427/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ajayshree Gramin Bigar Sheti The National Faceless Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit, V Assessment At Post Murum, Tal Baramati, S Centre(Nfac), Delhi. Dist Pune, Pune – 412306. Pan: Aaaaa9964E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Manoj R Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 30.10.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.86,59,612/-Made By The Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed By The Appellant U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Without Considering The Detailed Submissions Made By The Appellant & Without Passing Any Speaking Order, On The Ground That Only The Income Earned By Providing Credit Facility To Its Members Be Treated Ajayshree Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit [A]

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ajayshree Gramin Bigar Sheti The National Faceless Sahakari Patasanstha Maryadit, V Assessment AT Post Murum, Tal Baramati, s Centre(NFAC), Delhi. Dist Pune, Pune – 412306. PAN: AAAAA9964E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Manoj R Jain – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde ... ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] dated 30.10.2023 for A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming

Shri Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-4, Panvel, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 1388/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1388/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, At Post-Shevgaon, Davakinadan Khandoba Ngr., Ahmednagar-414502 Pan: Aaepw7481P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Prasad Bhandari [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(i)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

29/11/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘NFAC’], 2. Succinctly stated facts of present case are that; 2.1 The assessee an individual and was an employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd [in short ... expounded in ‘V V Iyer Vs CC’ [1999] 110 ELT 414 (SC). In view of this, we set-aside the impugned order of Ld. NFAC and quashed the order of penalty. 9. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules

Nagnath Vitthal Waghmode, at Post Kolesolapur, Tal Moh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Two, Income Tax Office, Pandharpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1200/PUN/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 144Section 250(6)

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-2021, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056385646(1), dated 21.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard Both ... parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting his contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge. Shri Basavaraj could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the learned NFAC

L & T Finance Limited [Successor of L & T Fincorp Limited, Now Merged], Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 679/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 L&T Finance Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of (Successor Of L&T Fincorp Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Limited, Now Merged) Vs. Kolkata 15Th Floor, Ps Srijan Tech Park, Plot No. 52, Block Dn, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prasant Jaiswal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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/250/2022-23/1046171594(1) dated 04.10.2022 passed against the assessment order by DCIT (OSD), Circle-2(2), Mumbai u/s.143(3) of the Income ... court on8thMarch, 2024. (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Dated: 8thMarch, 2024 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //// By Order

Sansar Trading (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 544/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Kesari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, JCIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

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/NAC/S/250/2022-23/1051475366(1) dated 28.03.2023 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata u/s.143(3) of the Income ... on8thMarch, 2024. (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Dated: 8th March, 2024 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //// By Order

Harsha Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(4), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Harsha Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Room No. 3, 1St Floor, Stephen 8(4), Kolkata. Vs. House, 4, B. B. D Bag (East), Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aabch6873N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

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/NAC/S/250/2022-23/1050223414(1) dated 28.02.2023 passed against the penalty order by ITO, Ward-8(4), Kolkata u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income ... on8thMarch, 2024. (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Dated: 8th March, 2024 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //// By Order

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT-Corp Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1052685424(1) dated 09.05.2023. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai ... loss. For this, assessee has raised following the ground No.2:- “2. Denial of deduction for provision for diminution in value of treasury investments The NFAC / learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned ACIT for mark-to-market loss of Rs.1,02,66,292/- on treasury

Rajarajeswari Krafts Private Limited, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Coporate Ward 4, Madrai, Madurai

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

ITA 1201/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1201/Chny/2023 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajarajeswari Krafts Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 900, Kamak Road, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, Sivakasi – 626 189. Madurai. [Pan: Aadcr-8256-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V.Rajasekaran, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.Rajasekaran, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271BSection 44A

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated 29-08-2023 relevant to the Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed penalty as levied

Reporter Family Private Trust, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer - ITO (It) 26(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3858/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 61

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 18/09/2023, passed by NFAC Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 for the A.Y.2010-11. In various grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.2,59,21,343/- from the income

Darshan Kishore Sangulkar, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 3834/MUM/2023[25/10/2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024

Bench: Us Ld. Counsel Submitted That Here In This Case Exparte Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.144 On The Ground That Assessee Had Not Responded To The E-Mail Sent By The Ld. Ao & Accordingly, Additional Amount Of Unexplained Investment Of Rs.53,30,000/-

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 08/08/2023 passed by NFAC Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 / 144 for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. Before us ld. Counsel submitted that here in this case exparte assessment order was passed u/s.144 ... reads as under:- 1. The Appellant is before this Hon'ble Court against the ex-parte Order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) dated 08/08/2023. Confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer 2. The Appellant's case for A. Y 2013-14 was re-opened

Avinash Kumar Ojha, Thane vs. ITO 2(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3552/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 40A(3)

BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) and it relates to assessment year 2014- 15. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision

Satyam Print House, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2898/MUM/2023[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

present appeal the Assessee has challenged the 1. order, dated 19/06/2023, 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 2018-19, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

Progressive Alloys(India) Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3882/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Deepanshu Singla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh

Kuroda Electric India Private Limited, Haryana vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3123/DEL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3123/Del/2023, A.Y. 2016-17 Kuroda Electric India Vs. Acit, Private Ltd. Circle -2(1), Unit No. 511, Gurgaon Suneity Business Tower, Sector-54, Golf Course, Road Gurgaon, Chakkarpur B.O., Gurgaon Haryana, India 122002 Pan : Aafck9587N Appellant Respondent

08/03/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 29/11/2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds of the Assessee are as under :- “1. The learned ACIT

Smt. Surinder Kaur Thapar (Legal Heir of Late Shri Amrit Singh Thapar), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2103/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11 Smt. Surinder Kaur Thapar Vs. Dcit, (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Amrit Circle-2(1), Singh Thapar) New Delhi. R-612, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi – 110 060 Pan Aaapt0790Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 234CSection 68Section 69Section 69C

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.05.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment year (“AY”) 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income ... Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred both in law and, on facts in upholding the determination of income made by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi of the appellant at Rs. 1,04,86,210/- as against declared income

Devender Kumar Sachdeva, Nuh vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1710/DEL/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.12.2022. 2. On perusal of the record, we find that the appeal filed before the Tribunal is barred by limitation. The assessee has not filed any application

Gaganpreet Singh Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Ward 51(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1556/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.03.2023. 2. On going through the record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has summarily confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal