“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

ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara vs. Raj Concrete, Near Ioc

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 876/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 876/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Ito Raj Concrete बनाम/ Ward -1(2)(2), Vadodara 466, Block/Survey, At Post Vs. Duimad, Nr. Ioc, Vadodara, Gujarat 391740 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfr5792Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R.

For Respondent: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R

Section 143(3)

instant appeal filed at the behest of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara ITA No. 876/Ahd/2023 (ITO vs. Raj Concrete

M/S. N. K. Infrastructure, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 872/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144

Shri Atul Pandey appearing for the Revenue has no objection in setting aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC for disposal of the appeal on merits, subject to filing necessary “Condonation Petition” explaining the delay. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused ... assessee and to uphold the Principle of Natural Justice, the impugned order is set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to the assessee, to file appropriate Affidavit explaining the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. It is thereafter on the satisfaction

Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 828/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 828/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

instant appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the DCIT, Circle - 2(1)(2), ITA No. 828/Ahd/2023 (Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited vs. DCIT

Suresh Narayan Dolas, Aurangabad vs. ITO 1(4) Aurangabad, Cannought Place Aurangabad

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 1053/PUN/2023[2012-2013]Status: PendingITAT Pune23 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1053/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Suresh Narayan Dolas 1/281, Navjeevan Colony, Hiwarkheda Rd., Kannad, Tal.:Kannad, Dist.:Ch. Sambhajinagar-431103 Pan : Azspd9401D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 253(1)(a)

filed u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’] by the assessee challenging the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054958487(1) dt. 08/08/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3 Suresh Narayan Dolas Vs ITO ITA No.1053/PUN/2023 ... Motors Finance Ltd.’ reported in 254 ITR 449 (Del.) 2.2 When aforestated addition is assailed in an appeal before first appellate authority, the Ld. NFAC accorded as many as six opportunities of hearing vide notice dt. 28/01/2021, 15/06/2023, 22/06/2023, 12/07/2023, 19/07/2023 and 26/07/2023, however these remained futile. In absence

Sanil Sethu Madhavan, Pune vs. CIT A, Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 1051/PUN/2023[18-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1051/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanil Sethu Madhavan 56/4/1, Kondhwa Khurd Lane-12, Nr Ravi Apts, Pune-411048 Pan : Aucpm6579Q . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054731019(1) Dt. 31/07/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)

filed u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’] by the assessee challenging the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054731019(1) dt. 31/07/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act. 2.1 Briefly stated facts anent to the case are that; the assessee filed ... delay of 398 days. In absence of affidavit explaining reasons beyond aforestated delay and a petition seeking condonation of such delay, the Ld. NFAC came to dismiss the appeal in limine by relying on the catena of decisions. 2.3 Aggrieved assessee brought up this appeal challenging the action

Palliyampil Mathai Kurian, Mahad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel

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

ITA 1020/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalipalliyampil Mathai Kurian, Vs Dcit, Circle, Panvel. Sanu Constructions Sursangam Complex, At Post Mahad, Tal-Mahad, Dist. Raigad, Mahad-402301 Pan: Afmpk 8531 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Gaurav K. Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 01.08.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K. Singh, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 69

pronouncement : 23/02/2024 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 01.08.2023 for A.Y.2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. In this case, a notice u/sec. 148 was issued to the assessee ... Total Rs. 37,76,403 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the NFAC. The assessee had not appeared before the appellate proceedings, therefore, the NFAC by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharge

Basuki Vyapaar Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 184/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.184/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Basuki Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaccb6156B) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Kolkata. …………….. Respondent Appearances By: N O N E Appeared For Appellant. Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit (Dr) Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 23.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 09.01.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Ito, Ward-8(1) Dated 08.03.2016. 2. When The Case Was Called Or None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In The Past Also When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 06.06.2023 & 23.08.2023, There Was No Compliance. We Thus

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 09.01.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by ITO, ward ... order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Basuki Vyapaar Private Limited, 1, Postal Park, Kolkata-700070. 2. ITO, Ward-8(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. Departmental Representative 6. Guard File.By order

True-Man Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1158/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 13.07.2023 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated ... True-Man Consultants Pvt. Ltd., 8, Camac Street, 807, Shantiniketan Building, Kolkata-700 017. 2. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Nataraja Kailar, Bantwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 96/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058341313(1) dated 30.11.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.1

North Facing Real Tech Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 976/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Snehal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi on 25/09/2023 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056495048(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 on the following grounds: Page 2 of 9 ‘1. The learned CIT (A) (NFAC ... assessing total Income of Rs. 1,59,75,500/-instead of declared NIL income in Return of Income. 2. The learned CIT (A) (NFAC) and the Learned ITO has erred in not relying the documents produced before him to prove the entire transaction in terms of Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness

Shobha Jain, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 926/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056421768(1) dated 22.09.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18. 2. The only issue arising in this appeal is the addition of Rs.61

Byndoor Sudhindra Shet, Karnatka vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udupi

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

ITA 826/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69B

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055537243(1) dated 29.8.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18. Page 2 of 7 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1 That on facts and circumstances

Dhadda Gem N Jewels, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 663/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Padmavathy S, AM: 1. This appeal of the Asseessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 13.1.2023 for AY 2009-10. 2. The only issue contended in this appeal is the addition made by the Assessing Officer

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vijaykumar Mansukhlal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3752/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

Bench: 1. These appeals of the Revenue and the Assessee are against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC [for short 'the CIT(A)], dated 21.8.2023 for AY 2010-11. 2. The only issue contended by both the Revenue and the Assessee are the profit estimated

Vijaykumar Mansukhlal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3) (5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3507/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

Haresh Ghashyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2906/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

assessee, challenging the ex parte 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 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2016-17. 2. As the facts

Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2904/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

DCIT -26(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)

Section 2(47)(v)

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

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

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

Bharat Agro Industries, Bhiwani vs. DCIT Circle, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3934/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Bharat Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Devsar Mod, Opp. Delhi Police Circle Bhiwani. School, Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021. Pan-Aamfb0628H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Adv., Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. & Shri Parth Singhal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2024

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) dated 10.11.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhiwani of the appellant at Rs. 40,25,455/-as against declared income of Rs. 98,041/- by the appellant in an order