“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

Sh. Rajjo Singh, Chirawal Gurjar, Bharatpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur

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

ITA 614/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary ( Addl. CIT) a

Section 69A

assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 24-08-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2018-19 wherein the assessee has raised the solitary ground of appeal as under:- ‘’The ld. CIT(A) has erred

Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Indu Rathore, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 515/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Dalmia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT a

Section 143(2)Section 69A

Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 12-06-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi is justified ignoring the facts that the assessee neither could justify the source of cash deposits of Rs 3,51,35,700/- nor 2 ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR VS SMT INDU RATHORE, JAIPUR could produce documentary evidence as specifically

Coastal Marine Constrcution and Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)22, NFAC

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

ITA 2291/MUM/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhcoastal Marine Vs. The Acit Construction & Circle 14(1)(2) Engineering Limited Mumbai 402 Madhava Bkc Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacc1585F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(iii)

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 27.04.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “ The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.25

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai City

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2032/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

rail system was rejected. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the action of AO before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was allowed by the Ld. NFAC following the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case (ITA. No.3475/Mum/2019 dated 07.11.2022). Aggrieved, the revenue has preferred this appeal by raising ground ... before the Tribunal. Thus the AO rejected the claim for deduction under section 80IA in respect of the rail system. On appeal, the Ld. NFAC after appreciating the fact that this issue have been racked up in the hands of assessee and claim disallowed after the investigation made

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2031/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1996/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-1(1)(1) Vs. M/S Chemical & Ferro 579, Aaykar Bhavan, Alloys Private Limited M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, Liberty Mumbai – 400020 Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacc4508N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143Section 143(2)

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 30.03.2023 for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case

Bank of India, Midcoporate Branch vs. JCIT(TDS), Nagpur

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

ITA 159/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SadraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271C

branches of Nagpur Zone and appointed a centralized Consultant. From careful perusal of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC], Delhi, it is noticed that the appeal of the assessee was instituted before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 09.01.2021 which is falling under ... SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 11th December, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr. CIT , Nagpur concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, “Nagpur” Bench, Nagpur. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune

Mukesh, Sonepat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Sonepat

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

ITA 2772/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

been filed by the assessee against the first appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 03.08.2023 arising from the assessment order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Income

Punjab National Bank, Karnal vs. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

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

ITA 2414/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Punjab National Bank Vs. Ito(Tds) Karnal Panchkula (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V. Rajakumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 26.05.2023 By Nfac, Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. Dismissing Appeal Against Order Passed U/S 201 & 201(1A) Of The Act Without Providing Due & Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing:

Section 201

11/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 26.05.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2013-14. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. dismissing appeal against order passed ... reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time, therefore, the delay is condoned. 4. A perusal of the order by NFAC show that the appeal has been dismissed for non prosecution though there is mention of issue of notices but whether such notices were served upon

Prem Lata Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1178/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Lata Bansal Vs. Ito 2778/7, Bhatnagar Motor Ward- 35 (2) Market, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi Delhi-110006 Pan No.Aaepb2821J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Prakash Sinha, Advocate Sh. Kartik Garg, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 20.03.2023 By Nfac, Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Sum & Substance Of The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That No Notice Was Effectively Served Upon The Assessee & The First Appellate Authority Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Exparte.

11/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 20.03.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2017-18. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that no notice was effectively served upon the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1.1. Raipur, Raipur vs. Renu Behl, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 289/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.289/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 147Section 148Section 268ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.06.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ... organized tax evasion activity? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,26,8611- for concealment of income whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 257/RPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 257/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, 1154, Ward No.12, Minimata Nagar, Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Aahcr9787K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.05.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ... grounds of appeal before us: “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lams the Id. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the additions of Commission paid of Rs.3,87,04,969/- made-u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 merely

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Murli Kumar Agrawal (HUF), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 161/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 161/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Murli Kumar Agrawal (Huf) Konark Industries Paragaon, Paragaon, Nayapara, Rajim-493 881 Pan : Aaehm7729L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.12.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ... appeal had occasioned due to various time barring matters which were pending in their office, shortage of staff, tracking of orders received from NFAC. The Ld. DR in support of his aforesaid contention has filed an application dated 30.08.2022 seeking condonation of delay, which reads as under

Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Limited, Kochi vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 70/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daslakeshore Hospital & Rsearch Asst. Cit, Centre Ltd. Corporatecircle 1(1), Xvi Maradu, Nh 47 Bye Pass Vs. C.R. Building, Is Press Road Netoor P.O., Kochi 682040 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aaacl4923A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini V. Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

hereinafter) dated 13.10.2015 for assessment year (AY) 2010-11, i.e., pursuant to revision order dated 20.03.2015, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] vide it’s order dated 21.11.2023. 2. The issue on quantum is concerned with the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts

M/S High Range Foods Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(3), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Sanjay Arora, AM This Appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 28.06.2022 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)], disallowing the assessee’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated

Kolangath Muhammed Aslam, Tanur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1005/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskolangath Muhammed Aslam The Income Tax Officer Kolangath House Ward - 1 & Tps, Tirur Pariyapuram P.O. Vs. Tanur 676302 [Pan:Ccypk9063K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hamid Hussain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 5

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 26.10.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC (CIT(A), vide it order dated 06.04.2022. 2. At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the appeal, filed on 23.12.2022, is delayed by 201 days

Himanshu Botadeara HUF, Indore vs. The ITO 4(3), Indore

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

ITA 156/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These two appeals by the assesse are directed against two separate orders of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 22nd February,2023, for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these

Himanshu Botadeara HUF, Indore vs. The ITO 4(3), Indore

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

ITA 155/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

Bhikhubhai Keshavbhai Mistry, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 410/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhikhubhai Keshavbhai Mistry, I.T.O., 1, Kabirgam, Valiya, Ankleshwar, Ward-1(5), Vs. Bharuch, Gujarat-393135. Bharuch. Pan No. Apnpm 1810 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69A

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 31/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds

Dineshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 407/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.407/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Mohanbhai Patel Assistant Commissioner Of Shop No. 7, 3Rd Floor, Meghna Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat, Complex, Udhna Magdalla Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Bhatar Char Rasta, Surat-395007 Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtpp 8286 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kishore R Gheewala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11/12/2023

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 23.12.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in allowing the appellant’s appeal in part only & upholding the impugned addition of Rs.98,03,030/- to the amount