← 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

The Bombay Society of the Salesian Sisters India, Wadala Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 2 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order disallowing the exemption for assessment year 2016-17 is hereby set aside

ITA 2920/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha Sr.AR
Section 11(1)(a)

appellant-society. 5. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) which was made over to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The CIT(A) by its order dated 27.06.2023 has dismissed the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant did not respond

Ramprasad Kamtaprasad Nigam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 21 3 1 Mumbai, Parel Lalbaugh

In the result, appeal has to succeed

ITA 2839/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2015-16 Ramprasad Kamtaprasad Nigam Vs. Ito -Ward 21(3)(1) Room No.207, 2Nd Floor 45A, Raichand Niwas, S.K.Bole Marg, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aaapn3642D(Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, President and Shri B.R. Baskaran

A.S.Motiwala Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of

ITA 2773/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2773/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) As Motiwala Jewellers Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-12(2)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly Known As Ghazi Mumbai-400020. Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd) 40 Rebello Road Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg8165B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Ms Madhuri Tambe Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 14.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee, Assails The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition On Merits, To The Tune Of Rs.59,53,440/- U/S 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). In Other Words, Assessee Assails The Action Of Ld Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of Ao, Wherein He Disallowed The Entire Purchases Of Diamonds Made From M/S. Mohit Enterprises (Alleged Concern Of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group).

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Ms MadhuriFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 14.06.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee, assails the action of the Ld. CIT(A) sustaining

Nrusinh Saraswati Yog Chintan Math Trust, Thane vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 2658/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2658/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Nrusinh Saraswati Yog बिधम/ Ito, Exemption Ward, Chintan Math Trust Thane Vs. 16, Narayan Niwas, Opp, Quereshi Mansion, Railway Station, Thane Gokhale Road, Naupada, East, Maharashtra-400603. Near Teen Hath Naka, Thane West-400602. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagts6735E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ramkrishna Lingsur Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 05.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Denying The Accumulation U/S 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.10,50,000/- Despite The Fact That The Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Form 10 Was Pending Before Ld. Cit(E), Pune.

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna LingsurFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee Trust against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 05.06.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming

Kunnama V Balakrishna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2577/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 147

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 27.05.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. None appeared for the assessee, despite the fact that the appeal has been fixed for hearing on previous

Kishansing Pahadsingh Parmar (HUF), Malad (West) vs. The Income Tax Officer-30 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2440/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2440/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kishansing Pahadsingh बिधम/ Ito-30(2)(1) Parmar (Huf) C-13 Pratyakshakar Vs. Flat No.801, Shreenath Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Apartment A-Wing, J.P. Complex, Bandra East, Cross Lane, Himanshurai Mumbai-400051. Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadhk9023N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain/Shri Kunal Lunawat Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.29,77,009/- & Rs.89,310/- U/S 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain/ShriFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 69C

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee trust against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 28.04.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming

Ashwin Vardhichand Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2434/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am. Her Attiict H/ Lta. No.2434/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 50C

No.2434/Mum/2023 (frufor ag / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ashwin Vardhichand Shah | q414/ | National Faceless Ground Floor, Shop Vs. Assessment Centre NO.176/80 Kika Street, (NFAC) Gulalwadi, Mumbai- ITO-15(1)(4) 400004. Matru Mandir, Mumbai. edt char U. /sitengene FW. /PAN/GIR No. : AAFPS1034D (arena / Appellant) ” Galt / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vimal Punmiya ... VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 26.06.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the capital

Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2398/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, Manishnagar, G- Block,Bkc, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa1748E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and U/sec250 of the Ac. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there

Baljeevan Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1872/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1872/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bal Jeevan Trust बिधम/ Ito (E), Ward-1(1) A/14, Sterling Apartments, Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. Peddar Road, Mumbai- Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400026. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2973M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Accumulation Of Rs.30 Lakhs As Per Section 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Read With Rule 17 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter “The Rules”).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12A

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee trust against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 15.03.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action

Savita Mercantiles Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.168/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Savita Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito-3(3)(2) 83, A Wing, Mittal Tower, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Karve Road, New Marine 400021. Lines, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs9614G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Viraj Mehta Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 03.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.45,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Receipt Of Share Application Money Only On The Basis Of Statement Given By Shri Pravin Kumar Jain.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 183(6)

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 03.01.2023 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition

Rushabh Precision Bearings, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3270/MUM/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3270/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Rushabh Precision Bearings बिधम/ Acit-7(2) Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Fida Mansion, 2Nd Floor, 4, Marg, Mumbai-400020. Babijan Street, Nagdevi, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr5214N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Ex-Parte Order Dated 03.12.2007 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For The Ay. 2003-04. 2. At The Outset, We Note That This Tribunal Had Dismissed This Appeal By An Ex-Parte Order Qua Assessee On 21.06.2022 Which Has Been Recalled By This Tribunal By Order Dated 24.04.2023 (Ma. No.66/Mum/2023).

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

J.C.B Welfare Society, Palwal vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 2574/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] J.C.B. Welfare Society, Vs Ito, Near Bagla Nursing Home, Ward-1(3), Agra Chowk, Palwal, Faridabad. Haryana-121102. Pan-Aaaaj7547A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sweta Bansal, Ca & Shri Sudharshan Roy, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 30.05.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Being aggrieved by the order under Section ... made by Honorable Commissioner of Appeal, National Face Less Appeal Center (NFAC) of Income Tax Act in respect of PAN: AY: Dated: DIN & Order No. AAAAJ7547A 2017-18 30/05/2022 ITRA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1043252492(1) belongs to named J.C.B. WELFARE SOCIETY Addressed:- Near Bagla Nursing Home, Agra Chowk, Palwal 121102, Haryana Which

Manmohan Singh Bajaj, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2563/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manmohan Singh Bajaj, Vs Ito, F-75, First Floor, Kalkaji, Ward-29(1), New Delhi-110019. Delhi. Pan-Aawpb1075G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vinod Bhatia, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 30.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 30.06.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Ground (1) 2nd floor of property no. 1912A

Dharmendra, Sambhal vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Chandausi

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

ITA 2404/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dharmendra, Vs Cit(A), S/O-Shri Prempal, Village- Nfac, Income Tax Saijna Muslim Gunnaur, Department, Delhi. Sambhal-243722. Pan-Bjkpd6962J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K.Sampath & Shri V.Raja Kumar, Advocates Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 144

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dharmendra, vs CIT(A), S/o-Shri Prempal, Village- NFAC, Income Tax Saijna Muslim Gunnaur, Department, Delhi. Sambhal-243722. PAN-BJKPD6962J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri K.Sampath & Shri V.Raja Kumar, Advocates Respondent by Shri ... BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 19.09.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

Sumeet Kachwaha (Legal Heir of Late Smt. Kushal Kachwaha), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 33(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2388/DEL/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Sumeet Kachwaha, Vs Ito, [Legal Heir Of Late Smt. Kushal Ward No.33(1), Kachwaha], 1/6, Shanti Niketan, E-2 Block, New Delhi-110021. Civic Center, Pan-Aalpk7161K New Delhi-110001. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jatin Prothi, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 148

present appeal filed by the Legal Heir of the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) dated 29.06.2023 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The Legal Heir of the assessee has raised following revised grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld.CIT

Pitamber Lal Sunderdas Rajdev, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(3), Bhyopal

ITA 173/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raopitamber Lal Sunderdas Rajdev Ito 3(3) Sundervan Nursery, Bhopal Bhopal Indore Road, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Adfpr 4144Q Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .12.2023

Section 148Section 54Section 54B

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax / National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in confirming the proceedings initiated under section 148 as valid. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessee the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,92,300.00 and disallowing the deduction under section 54 B of the Act. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter amend or withdraw any ground of appeal

Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 629/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 80C

shall take appeal of assessee in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to pass ex-parte appeal order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard as well ... decide the appeal only on statement of fact and grounds of appeal raised in appeal Memo. 2. Ld. CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to upheld AO’s action for initiation proceedings u/s 148 of the Act when ITR was filed u/s139 and there

Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 628/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 80C

shall take appeal of assessee in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to pass ex-parte appeal order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard as well ... decide the appeal only on statement of fact and grounds of appeal raised in appeal Memo. 2. Ld. CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to upheld AO’s action for initiation proceedings u/s 148 of the Act when ITR was filed u/s139 and there

Mm Brothers, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bangalore, DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 653/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 653/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 M/s. M.M. Brothers E-666 Ekta Complex, Nakul Path, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur 302 015 cuke Vs. The DCIT Circle-6 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AARFM 8094 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Da

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 37Section 37(1)

assesse is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 04-09-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC)] for the A.Y. 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts ... erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.71,70,438/- made by ld. CIT(A), NFAC appeal u/s 143(1)(a)/154 without considering the facts that the amount so claimed is on account liquidated damages paid which is not fine or penalty but on account

Madan Lal Jat, Renwal vs. ITO Ward 7(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 20-09-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The impugned order