← 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

Konkan Education Soc. Sevakshakari Patpedhi Ltd, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panvel

The appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED

ITA 46/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 046 & 047/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Giteesh Kalyani through virtual [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057854312(1) & 1057854663(1) both dt. 09/11/2023 passed u/s 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereafter] by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereafter] arising out of respective order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A)/144B of the Act for assessment year ... assessee filed separate appeals before first appellate authority. The submission of the assessee failed to inspire any confidence, in the event the Ld. NFAC echoed the view of Ld. AO and countenanced the denial by placing strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka rendered

Shri Premprakashishprakash Sharma, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

ITA 19/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-19, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre’s [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Dins & Orders nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059131155(1), 1059131824(1), both dated 28.12.2023, involving proceedings u/sec.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC). That being the case, NFAC is directed to re-decide the assessee’s twin lower appeals as per law afresh, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. 4. These assessee’s twin appeals

Shri Premprakashishprakash Sharma, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-2(1), Pune

ITA 18/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-19, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre’s [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Dins & Orders nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059131155(1), 1059131824(1), both dated 28.12.2023, involving proceedings u/sec.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC). That being the case, NFAC is directed to re-decide the assessee’s twin lower appeals as per law afresh, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. 4. These assessee’s twin appeals

Pudhari Publications Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 12/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These three appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all dated 10.11.2023. Since issue involved is same, all these appeals were heard together and decided ... assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] it is observed

Pudhari Publications Private Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 11/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These three appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all dated 10.11.2023. Since issue involved is same, all these appeals were heard together and decided ... assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] it is observed

Pudhari Publications Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 10/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These three appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all dated 10.11.2023. Since issue involved is same, all these appeals were heard together and decided ... assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] it is observed

Metal Industries, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 605/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Metal Industries, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-44, Industrial Estate, Ward – 6(3), Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Telangana. Pan : Aawfm8494Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.27.10.2023 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads ... National Faceless Appeal Centre. 14. 14.1 On 06.10.2023, a hearing notice u/s. 250 was issued to the appellant by the Hon'ble CIT (A), NFAC for the appellant to furnish ground-wise written submissions. The due date for submission of response was 13.10.2023 14.2 Insufficient time i.e., only 5 working

Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Bharat Dynamics Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pan : Aaacb7880N. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Dave, Ca. Revenue By: Ms. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr.Ar.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Dave, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Helen Ruby Jesindha
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

erroneously. Hence, the following grounds may be replaced : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee company against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Income

Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 259/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.259/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Nunna Primary Agricultural Co-Op Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd. Ward-3(5) D.No.6-56, Nunna Village Vijayawada Vijayawada Rural Krishna District [Pan : Aaban2838D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056387531(1) dated 21.09.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Vardhanapu Manikumari of Late Earnest Christopher Vardhanapu, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 256/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Vardhanapu Manikumari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Earnest Christopher Ward-1 Vardhanapu Bhimavaram D.No.21-16-30A Dora Bangalow Mission Compound, West Godavari [Pan : Aeepv0600F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054023226(1) dated 28.06.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

Polipalli Farmers Service Co Operative Society Ltd, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 218/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Polepalli Farmers Service Vs. Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Society Ltd. Ward-1 D.No.1-36, Polepalli Village Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Aaeat0705C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(1)

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048441004(1) dated 04.01.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Chintala Bhaskara Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 148/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.148/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Chintala Bhaskara Rao Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.8-272-8/2, Vuda Colony (Appeals) Gopalapatnam Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aiwpb2409G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Srirama Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050613269(1) dated 10.03.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Andhara Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 117/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.117/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Prohibition & Excise Complex, Circle-1(1) Rsno.88/2B, Saivihar Apartments Guntur Poultry Farm Road Prasadampadu, Vijayawada [Pan : Aanca8537G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 144

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049780617(1) dated 15.02.2023, arising 2 I.T.A. No.117/Viz/2023, A.Y.2020-21 Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Ltd.,Vijayawada out of order passed

Bina Metal Way Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1403/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 1403/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bina Metal Way Pvt. Ltd.,........................Appellant Ah-138, Salt Lake, Sector-Ii, Kolkata-700091, West Bengal [Pan: Aabcb1511D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 154

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16.11.2023 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 1 Bina Metal way Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal, but in brief ... Income Tax, Circle-1(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

M/S. Dahisar Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO-7(1), Kolkata.

In the result, ITA No. 1069/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1069/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 68

ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in brevity ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 24.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year ... Dahisar Traders Pvt. Ltd., 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700 020. 2. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.64/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Jcit (Osd) Engineering Private Limited Corporate Circle-1(1) बनाम/ Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.189/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jcit (Osd) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. / Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.49/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.189/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Jcit (Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1) Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash (Ca)- Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by an order dated 24-11-2022 as passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer

JCIT(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Casa Grande Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.64/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Jcit (Osd) Engineering Private Limited Corporate Circle-1(1) बनाम/ Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.189/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jcit (Osd) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. / Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.49/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.189/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Jcit (Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1) Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash (Ca)- Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by an order dated 24-11-2022 as passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer

Sivalingam Natarajan, Ponamaravathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Puducherry

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

ITA 1450/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

argued that this is in violation of principles natural justice as notices were served by Email by the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) could not be accessed by the assessee as he is very old and settled in village after winding up of the business. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Hallmark Infrastructure Private Iimited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward 2(3). Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1446/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1446/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hallmark Infrastructure Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), 43, United Plaza, Usman Road, Chennai – 34. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aabch 5970J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056886068(1) dated 09.10.2023. The assessment order was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Chennai for the assessment ... were issued right from 2020 through till 2023 and all of them (3 in number) remain un-complied with. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFaC) also in November, 2022 enabled communication window to facilitate filing of submissions by the appellant but to no avail. 3. In view of the above

Mr. Gopal Ganesan, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Non Corp Circle-4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1429/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1429/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Gopal Ganesan, Assistant Commissioner Of No.89, Kommandamparai, V. Income-Tax, Pichanur, Non-Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 105. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Ajdpg-2120-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.10.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, learned AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed