“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

Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, Surat vs. I.T.O., Ward 2(2)(5), Surat.

In the result, the ground No

ITA 591/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, I.T.O., A-201, Surya Prakash Residency, Ward-2(2)(5), Vs. Beside Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

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 25/08/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds

DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Total Energies Marketing India P Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S. Total Oil India P Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 97/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 40

clause of India-France DTAA? 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC erred in adjudicating the ground to refund excess DDT and giving the directions without appreciating that the appeal is against the order ... order u/s.237 of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC ought not to have allowed the ground of granting excess refund of DDT when the A.O. has not passed any order u/s. 237 denying the refund

DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Total Energies Marketing India P Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Total Oil India P Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 96/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 40

Powercap Capacitors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2474/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Powercap Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(1), 803, Swastik Chambers, Cst Mumbai. Vs. Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaacm 0152 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR

Section 143(3)Section 270A

filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee are reproduced as under: reproduced as under: “4. NFAC again fixed the case for hearing on 20.02.2023. But during 4. NFAC again fixed the case for hearing on 20.02.2023. But during 4. NFAC again ... file & documents of PCPL and couldn't file a submission misplaced the file & documents of PCPL and couldn't file a submission before the NFAC on 20.02.2023. before the NFAC on 20.02.2023. 5. On 13th July 2023, the PCPL approach me to know abou 5. On 13th July

Intra Accessories, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Moradabad

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

ITA 1623/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: me that during the online assessment proceedings, it was not able to upload the required documents due to some technical problems. In view of the submission given by the appellant and also in the interest in natural justice, one more opportunity is required to be given to the appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Ammar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr. DR

Section 144

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 28.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC ... made by the appellant which were not acted upon by him till date. Hence, affirmation of original assessment order by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is a nullity in the eyes of law. 2 ITA No.1623 /Del./2023 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

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

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 vide order dated 17/02/2022, by the first appellate authority, being the Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC [CIT(A)] vide it’s Order dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The brief background facts of the case are that the assessee, a retired defence personnel, is a registered money lender

Sumit Sinha, Thane vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2578/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 30-05- 2023 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2019-20. The grounds urged by the assessee relates to the following issues:- (a) Denial of relief

Shreeballabh Ramkaran Lohiya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 18(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2554/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. AR)

Section 250

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 23.05.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the impugned order ... during the physical regime). And thereafter, the appeal got migrated to the faceless regime and thus the appeal was heard by Ld. NFAC which passed the impugned order on 23.05.2023 ex-parte qua assessee without adjudicating the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by assessee. And therefore, he prays

Central Investigation and Security Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2363/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Central Investigation & Dy. Cit, Cpc Security Services Ltd., Bangalore-565050. Vs. Block Q, Dalal Estate, Mumbai Central 400 008. Pan No. Aaacc 6145 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Adiya Sharma Revenue By : Mr. H M Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/10/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Adiya SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal in its appeal are reproduced as under: reproduced as under: The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding the decision of The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding the decision of The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC

Deputy Conservator of Forest Forest Bhilwara, Bhilwara vs. CIT Appeal, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

Member ITA No. 98/Jodh/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ITA No. 99/Jodh/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Deputy Conservatior of Forest, Vs CIT(Appeal), Forest Bhilwara, NFAC, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001 Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAGD0386F Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA Revenue by : Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing ... Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.01.2023 2. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order

Deputy Conservator of Forest Forest Bhilwara, Bhilwara vs. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 98/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

Dynamix India Drill Con Co., New Delhi vs. The Assessing Officer Circle 62(1) Income Tax Civic Center Minto Road, Delhi

ITA 1771/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dynamix India Drill Con. Co. Assessing Officer G-4, 208/209, Sector- 16, Circle – 62 (1) Rohini, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Civic Centre, Pan No.Aadf05426B Minto Road, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 26.07.2022 By Nfac, Delhi Pertaining To A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Disregarding The Extension Order Granted By The Hon'Ble Courts For Extension Of The Time Limit As Well As Inhumanly Turning A Blind Eye Towards The Genuine Medical Grounds Of The Ca/Ar Of The Appellant.

Section 36(1)(va)

02/11/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 02/11/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 26.07.2022 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case ... employees' contribution to PF / ESI, invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. A perusal of the order of the NFAC show that the appeal of the assessee was filed beyond the limitation period before the CIT(A) and the delay was not condoned. We find from

ITO, Ward-52(1), New Delhi vs. Arti Jindal, Delhi

ITA 1502/DEL/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Jagdish Prasad Singhania, Raipur vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 81/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Jagdish Prasad Singhania 14, Bazar Para, Ward Singhania Sadan, Main Road, Tilda, Neora, Raipur (C.G.)-493 114 Pan : Ajkps0565M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)Section 221Section 271C

present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.07.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

Kinjal Heaven Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2955/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2955, 2956, 2957 & 2958/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Kinjal Heaven Vs. Ito,Ward19(2)(2), Cooperative Society Ltd, Piramal Chambers, 1St Wadia Street, 5Th Floor, Near Mumbai-400034. Bharatmata Theatre, Parel (East), Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No. : Aacak6843Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rajesh Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Act For The A.Y 2017-18 & For The A.Y 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(1) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.Rajesh Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and U/sec250 of the Act for the A.Y 2017-18 and for the A.Y 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 passed

Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari, Mumbai Suburban vs. Income Tax Office(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2952/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dhanesh Jyotindra Vs. Ito (It) – 3(1)(1), Kothari,A-Wing, Flat No. Air India Bldg, 6, Mahavir Krupa, Nariman Point, Vallabh Baug Lane, Mumbai-400021. Extn. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-4000077 Pan/Gir No. : Adapk9004H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 147 R.W.S 144C & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) passed u/sec 147 r.w.s 144C and U/sec 250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, hence

Mohd Sadique Badgujar, Mumbai vs. Commisioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2760/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemd. Sadique Badgujar, Vs. Ito, Ward 20(2)(2), 160-168, Ahmed Umer Room No.212, Bldg, 2Nd Floor, Block Piramal Chamber, No. 77A, Two Tank Lalbaug, Parel, Maulana Shaukat Ali Mumbai-400012. Road,Mumbai-400008. Pan/Gir No. : Aaipb6217A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234B

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 144 and U/sec 250 of the Ac. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) 1Failure of natural Justice- san Merits

J B Advani and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2544/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.B Advani & Company Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,Ador House, 4Th Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 6 K, Dubashmarg, Mumbai-400021. Kalghoda,Liongate,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1966D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Paras Savla & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe.Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 32Section 32(2)Section 70Section 71(2)

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec143(3) and U/sec 250 of the Ac. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Ground No. 1: The CIT(A) erred in upholding

Indira Gandhi, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer 29(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2530/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleindira Gandhi, Vs. Ito – 29(1)(5) 101,1Stflr,Tulip E & F 107,1St Floor, C-10, Chs Ltd, Mayureshpark, Pratyakshakarbhavan, Bhandup (West), Bkc, Mumbai-400078. Mumbai-400078. Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpg7601H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind Phadke.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68

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/sec143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances

Jamuna Apartments Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2465/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejamuna Apartments Co- Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Operativehousingsocietyltd, Bengaluru-560500. 68, Opp. Shoppers Stop, Karnataka. S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai -400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaj1509L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Yogesh A.Thar, &For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe.Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234FSection 80Section 80P

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The asseessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 154 and u/sec 250 of the Ac. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: GROUND NO. I: DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S80P