“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

Parvatiben Bhagubhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7, Vapi

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

ITA 497/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Parvatiben Bhagubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Dungri, Ponia Falia Udwada, Ward -7, Valsad – 396185. Vapi Pan : Afipp2146M Appellant Respondednt

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)

directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] / Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 18.05.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessment, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). The appeal was ITA. 497/SRT/2023/AY.2011-12 Parvatiben Bhagubhai Patel filed in 2019. The ld CIT(A)/ NFAC issued only one notice for the first time in the month of May 2023 as reflected in para 5.1 of impugned order and dismissed

Shri Hareshkumar Jayantilal Mahadevwala HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

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 30/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds

Mothers Education Hub, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 618/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 46,36,775/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred

Js Fourwheel Motors (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Alwar

ITA 488/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee and are arising out of the order of the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi both dated 26.05.2023 [Here in after referred as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO, passed under Section 144/147 of the Income

Nahta Trading Co., Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

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

ITA 449/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv. )For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 234A

assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 19.05.2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after referred to as (NFAC)] for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred

Arman Fatma, Hameed Nagar vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeisallowed for statistical purposed

ITA 432/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144

filed by the assessee againstthe order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 04.07.2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after referred to as"NFAC"] for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Arman Fatma vs. ITO "1. On the facts

Pink City Arts and Crafts, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 428/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agrawal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

J.S.Fourwheel Motors (P) Ltd, Alwar vs. ACIT. Circle 1 Alwar, Alwar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 144Section 24

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Mp Power Management Co.Ltd., Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/JAB/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh

Shobha Singh, Shahdol Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahdol Madhya Pradesh

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

ITA 115/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ayush Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 282

Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 115/JAB/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Shobha Singh, Vs The CIT(A), NFAC D Shobha Tiles & Traders, New Bust Stand Road Ward No. 17, Shhdol, MP 484001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. EMSPS 6071 K Assessee by : Sh. Ayush Gupta

Rama Chandra Pradhan, Jalangadiha vs. Income Tax Officer( Keonjhar Ward), Keonjhar

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

ITA 298/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.07.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054539352(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee even the case was called

Mukunda Prasad Misra, Cuttack, Odisha vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Taxc, Circle-2(1), Cuttack, Odisha

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.281/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mukund Prasad Mishra, Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Plot No.Hg-821/822, Cda, Sec-10 Cuttack-753014 Pan No. :Adfpm 1834 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.06.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053972764(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Is A Retired Judicial Officer. The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.1,51,156/- & The Total Income Of Rs.10,25,280/-. It Was The Submission That During The Relevant Assessment Year The Assessee Has Sold Two Properties One Being A Land At Bhubaneswar, Khurda For Rs.50 Lakhs & Another Being A Flat At Bidanasi, Cuttack For Rs.45,00,000/-. It Was The Submission That On The Sale Of The Properties The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S.54Ec Of The Act & Also Deduction On Account Of His Deposit In The Capital Gains Account Scheme Of 1988 With State Bank Of India. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Ao Held That The Assessee Having Not Invested The Entire

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

Section 54E

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.06.2023, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053972764(1) for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee

Aries Mineralsprivate Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 231/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.231/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Aries Minerals Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.924, Nigamananda Nagar, Lane-2, Bomikhal, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. :Aajca 2114 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25.04.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052340368(1), For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee, Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was Also The Submission That Both The Authorities Below Have Not Considered The Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In The Form Of Statement Of Facts & Grounds Of Appeal. It Was The Submission The Issues In This Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication & The Assessee May Be Given One More

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25.04.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052340368(1), for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) without

M/S. Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 211/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.211/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) M/S Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar Omc House, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. :Aaaco 3324 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.Venugopal Rao, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.03.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051606393(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee, Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was Also The Submission That The Assessee Had Produced Books Of Accounts, Documents & Other Particulars Before The Ao, However, The Ao Had Not Accepted Assessee’S Contention & Explanation. It Was The Submission The Issues In This Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication & The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity To Provide The Materials Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Substantiate Its Claim.

For Appellant: Shri P.Venugopal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.03.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051606393(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) without

Jay Kishore Choubey, Rairangpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2/CTK/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Charan Das, Sr

Section 147Section 148

assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi , NFAC, Delhi dated 4.11.022 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.CIT(A), Asansol/10156/2016 /10156/2016-17 for the assessment year 2010 2010-2011. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty

Reliable Spaces Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 939/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 27/01/2023, 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 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. 1) “The Learned CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in not giving proper opportunity to your appellant while dismissing the appeal of the appellant by the order

Dwarkadas Pragji Vandravan Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) - 1(2), Mumbai, Mumgai

ITA 3732/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, dated 25/08/2023, 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 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee

Circular Aircon Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2776/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2776/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Circular Aircon Services बिधम/ Ito, Ward-12(1)(4) 1St Floor, Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 1, Mehta Industrial Estate, Office, New Marine Line, Jai Prakash Road No.2, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc6387P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 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 09.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Exparte & Confirming The Disallowance Made By Cpc U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 09.06.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing

Hiren Chinubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2772/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2772/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Hiren Chinubhai Shah बिधम/ Ito, Ward-22(1)(5) A-301, Savoy Residency Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Santacruz (West) S.O. Bandra (East), Mumbai- Mumbai, Mumbai-400054. 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agups8207K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 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 23.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.20,84,190/- U/S 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Being 100% Of The Total Purchases Made From Two (2) Parties.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 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 23.06.2023 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) sustaining the disallowance

ACIT(CC)-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2683/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2683/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit(Cc)-6(4) बिधम/ Indiabulls Housing Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Finance Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman M-62 & 63 1St Floor, Point, Mumbai-400021. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci3612A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Shri Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva

Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM