“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

The City Centre 1 Commercial Co.Op. Housing Service Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 413/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80P

Date of pronouncement आदेश/ORDER This is an appeal filed against the order dated 02-09- 2022 passed by ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “Ground No 1-Disallowance of Expenses. 1. That the complete details ... including ledger accounts, bills/vouchers, bank statement, have been furnished but the learned AO and NFAC has not considered the same and the disallowance of expenses is against the facts of the case and 2 I.T.A No. 413/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. The City Centre 1 Commercial Co-op. Housing

Dilip Juharman Jain, Raigad vs. ACIT, Circle Panvel, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1242/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1242/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dilip Juharmal Jain, The Acit, Bazarpeth, Mirchi Galli, At & V Circle Panvel. Post Pen Tal Pen Dist, S Raigad – 402107. Pan: Aappj5566P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(ld.CIT(A))[NFAC], under section 250 of the Act dated 07.11.2023 emanating from the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 05.11.2018 . The grounds of appeal raised

Khairunnisa, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 24/HYD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Khairunnisa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, R/O.8-5-85, Ward 11(3), Road No.1, Hyderabad. Mallikarjuna Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Pan : Anvpk4801B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, appeared through virtual modeFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, appeared through virtual mode

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 54F

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.15.11.2023 invoking proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA No.24 /Hyd/2024 2. The grounds raised ... Rs.27,24,364/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal, which was later migrated to the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Before me, the ld. AR has submitted that in the present case, assessee had sold her property

Maheswar Reddy Itikyala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 12/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Maheswar Reddy Itikyala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.102, Urdu Hall Ward 9(4), Lane, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. House No.3-6-195/B, Telangana. Pan : Aplpr0940L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Appeared For Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sudhakar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144oSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

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.13.06.2023 invoking proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA No.12 /Hyd/2024 2. The grounds raised by the assessee ... valid reasons, and is perverse, highhanded is contrary to the provisions law, therefore the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals)NFAC dated 13/06/2023 is illegal ex-facie and violative of principals of natural justice. 8) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in charging interest

ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Bangalore, Koramangala vs. Irunway India Pvt Ltd, Banaglore

ITA 676/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Date of Pronouncement: 24.01.2024 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by revenue and CO by assessee are directed against the order of NFAC dated 15.9.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether ld. CIT(A) was correct in rejecting ... with an ulterior motive only to justify the share premium received by hiking the fair market value by DCF method. 6.3 Before the NFAC the appellant vehemently argued that it was the AO who has disregarded the provisions of law that allows a taxpayer an option to choose

M/S. Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Giriji G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 92C

Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17 dated 20.3.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... details of the addition is in para 5.11 of the assessment order. 2.1. Against this assessee went in appeal before NFAC. NFAC confirmed the order of the ld. AO. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The above ground Nos.1, 2, 14 & 15 are general which

Manjula, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1160/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18 Manjula No.10/10, 3Rd Main Road Chikka Adugodi Ito Bangalore 560 029 Vs. Ward 7(2)(3) Karnataka Bangalore

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Acharya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 22.11.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... while all the details sought during the assessment proceedings were submitted by the appellant. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals] - NFAC has erred in adjudicating the cash deposits made before the demonetization period to be Rs. 5,37,900/- as against Rs. 4,03,000/- thereby reaching to inaccurate

Thubagere Mudveerappa Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1146/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18 Thubagere Mudveerappa Enterprises No.9, 5Th Main Road, Apmc Yard Yeshwanthpur Ito Bangalore 560 022 Vs. Ward-6(2)(4) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No : Aaeft3444R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Prathibha R., A.R. Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 24.11.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Passed Under Sec. 144 Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Authority Is Opposed To Law & Not Valid & Accordingly Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Given Opportunity To Submit The Details & Allow To Give The Explanation About The Cash Deposits Were Made In Bank. The Deposits Were Made Out Of The Accumulated Cash Balances Relating To His Business. Thus, The Impugned Additions Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 24.11.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... terms of the notices fixed for hearing of the appeal under section 250 of the Act issued to the assessee to represent before NFAC. But no compliance has been made by the assessee before NFAC. The details of the opportunities allowed to the assessee to represent in this case

Sharanakumar Pyati, Bijapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3, Vijayapur

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

ITA 1145/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath Kalamath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

filed by the assessee against the ex parte DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057509751(1) dated 30.10.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information it was noticed that the assessee has deposited

Veeranna Chandrashekhar Marnal, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1128/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250Section 69Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 26.9.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... accorded to the assessee. So the cash in SBN notes over and above Rs.11,00,000/- is treated as unexplained by the NFAC. The assessee gets relief of Rs.11,00,000/- and addition to the tune of Rs.8,98,780/- was upheld by the NFAC. Veeranna Chandrashekhar Marnal, Hubli Page

Arvind Balkrishna Goregoankar, Wadala vs. The Income Tax Officer 26 (1) (2), Bkc, Bandra East

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

ITA 2791/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar The Income Tax Officer – 26(1)(2) Flat No. B – 1305, Bhavya Heights, 706, C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Katrak Road, N R Ram Mandir, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 Mumbai -400 051

For Appellant: Dr. Rajendra Kumar Jain &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

been filed by the assessee, 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 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2008-09. 2. The assessee

Sanjay Kumar Hirachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 20 (3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2659/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyash Shah, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: 09.01.2024 & 23.01.2024

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

fulfilled. Without Prejudice to the above, 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in upholding the disallowance of 100% of purchases made from Harsh Metal Corporation and R K Steel & Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., aggregating ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in not restricting the addition to the extent of difference in gross profit on undisputed purchases and gross profit on purchases from alleged purchase parties to tax only the profit element embedded

Jpr Investments and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2636/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhjpr Investments & Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Trading Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle 210, Shree Naman Plaza, 12(3)(1), Aayakar S.V. Road, Kandivali West Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400067 New Marine Lines Maharashtra – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabcj0559R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajesh S. Athavale Respondent By : Ujjwal Kumar Date Of Hearing 09.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024

For Appellant: Rajesh S. AthavaleFor Respondent: Ujjwal Kumar

Section 143(2)

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 31.05.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer

Panexcell Clinical Lab Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charges of Income Tax Officer 18(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1215/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, 1. dated 20/03/2023, 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 2015-16, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1149/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman () Ι.Τ.Α. No.1147/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2011-12 Ι.Τ.Α. No.1148/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2012-13 Ι.Τ.Α. No.1149/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai Vs M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Room No.455, 4Th Floor Ground Floor, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 19, Walchandhirachand Marg Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant Pan : Aaacr7446Q Respondent Present For The Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv), Sh. Jitendra Sanghvi (Ld. Ca) Present For The Department : Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024 Order Per N.K. Choudhry (Jm): These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee, Against The Separate Ordersevendated 08/02/2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( In Short `Nfac') / 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 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2015-16, Respectively. 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

appeals have been preferred by the Assessee, against the separate ordersevendated 08/02/2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( in short `NFAC') / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short `Ld. Commissioner') under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1148/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

been preferred by the Assessee, against the separate orders even dated 08/02/2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( in short „NFAC‟) / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short „Ld. Commissioner‟) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1147/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Bhagwant Education Foundation, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Exemtion 1(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 24(4)Section 26(3)

appeal against the order dated 17.12.2021, for the assessment year 2016-17, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “learned First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”), in appeal no. CIT, Delhi- 40/10209/2018-19, arising out of assessment order dated

Sh. Bipan Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 354/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ी आकाश

Sh. Ashish Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 353/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A