“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

Ganesh Natarajan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-30, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for the statistical purposes, on the same terms

ITA 2235/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69B

Member: The Assessee/appellant herein has preferred these appeals against the orders dated 01.03.2023 & 27.05.2023 impugned passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi {in short ‘NFAC ’}/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “ Ld. Commissioner” u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short

Shri Sumermal B Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(3)(4), M Umbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2230/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 143Section 250Section 68

Choudhry, JM: The Assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 27.05.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short ‘NFAC’}/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “ Ld. Commissioner” u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Shri Sumermal

Hem Bhattad, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1934/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40

PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2018-19 HEM Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (NFAC), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AAAAH 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT Circle-3(3)(1), HEM Bhattad, Room

Kailash Judhistir Sahi, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-38, Mumbaiqqq

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed in the same terms

ITA 1637/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Sr

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250

Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred these appeals against the orders even dated 09.02.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi {in short ‘NFAC’}/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short

Kailash Judhistir Sahu, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-38, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed in the same terms

ITA 1636/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Sr

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250

Ravesha Pigments Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi and AO (National Faceless Assessment Cenre, Delhi

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

ITA 1366/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraveshia Pigments Ltd, Vs. Nfeac, 11Th Floor Casablanca, Delhi. Gulmohar Cross Road No. 10, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400049. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7272E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Bhavin . J. Marfatia.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Sayogita Nagpal. CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.The Ld. AO (National faceless assessment center) ought to have appreciated that

Giri Bahadur, Navi Mumbai vs. WD 34(1) (4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2150/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Choudhry, JM: The Assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 30.09.2021 impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short ‘NFAC’}/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “Ld Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Giri Bahadur

Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1666/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.03.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That CIT(A) has grossly erred

Vikas Singhal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(2)

appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 15.03.2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

Schenck Process Europe Gmbh, Germany vs. DCIT - CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9214/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaschench Process Europe Gambh, Vs. Dcit, Pallaswiesenstrasse 100, Cpc, Bangalore Darmstadt, Germany (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaocs8500Q

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench “G”: New Delhi Before Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial

Steel Abrasive Industries Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 96/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Steel Abrasive Industries Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 301, Shyam Square Second Floor, Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) Pandri, Raipur, Raipur-H.O, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aagcs7905P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.01.2023 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Dated 30.09.2016 For A.Y.2011-12. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,13,20,940/- Made By Ao, On Account Of Alleged Suppression Of Production Of 467.32Mt. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of Ao In Rejecting Rectification Application Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Impugned Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Should Have Been Quashed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals). 3. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Modify Or Add Any Of The Ground/S Of Appeal.”

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

Arun Khodpia, AM : The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, dated 17.01.2023 which in turn arises from the order by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 30.09.2016 for A.Y.2011-12. The grounds

Sunil Bardia, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon

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

ITA 254/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 254/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Bardia Vs Income Tax Officer C/O. Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Adfpb7851A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10 /10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

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

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 69A

Arun Khodpia, AM : The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, dated 19.10.2022 which in turn arises from the order by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) dated 19.12.2019 for A.Y.2017-18. The grounds of the appeal ... receipt of interest at a lower rates for Rs.5,58,088/-, the assessee has challenged the order of the A.O before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, however, the contention of the assessee did not find favour 4 with the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the addition made on this count was confirmed

Mahesh Prasad Singh, Ambikapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

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

ITA 196/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahesh Prasad Singh Vs The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vidyanagar, Sector-3, Raipur-1 Beside Sant Harkewal School, Ambikapur (C.G.)-497 001 Pan: Bbvps9072H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.03.2023 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2011-12. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Sec. 263 & In Setting Aside The Assessment Order For Fresh Enquiry. Order Passed U/S 263 Is Unsustainable & Is Passed Without Properly Appreciating The Facts & Evidences On Record. The Assessment Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Modify Any Of The Ground/S Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.03.2023 u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12. The grounds of the appeal raised

Firoj Jamshedji Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 532/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat10 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.532/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Firoj Jamshedji Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ground Floor At & Post Mora Ward – 2(3)(6), Parsiwad, Moragam, Surat Surat – 394510 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bhjpp9558B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 06.06.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income ... exempted from tax. The ld Counsel further pointed out one of the co-owner’s case, namely: “MAHARUKH RUMI BHESANIA”, PAN: AYFPB4575L, AY.2011-12, vide NFAC Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056112525(1), order dated 15.09.2023, the addition has been deleted by the ld CIT(A). Therefore, matter may be remitted back

Pradhan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT Circle -1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 263/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.263/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/S Pradhan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Mahanadi Vihar Road, Sikharpur, Cuttack-753003 Pan No. :Aaccp 9795 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 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 07.06.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053602705(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Issue In This Appeal Was In Respect Of Two Additions Representing Loss & Damages & Bad Debt. It Was The Submission That In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Though Substantial Documents Have Been Produced, However, The Ld. Cit(A) In Para 5.3 Of His Order Has Held That “In Absence Of Any Concrete Documentary Evidence, The Appeal Cannot Be Adjudicated And, Therefore, Additions Made By The Ld. Ao Is Upheld. It Was The Submission That If The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Satisfied With The Evidence As Produced, Then It Was Incumbent

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, 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 07.06.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053602705(1) for the assessment year 2012-2013. 2. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the issue in this appeal

Am Sb Infra Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 167/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 40

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.03.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050581819(1) for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the issue in the assessee

M/S. Gammon Neelkanth Reality Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2187/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pratik MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 250

assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. In the circumstances and facts of the Assessee's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in upholding the rectification order u/s 154 on conjectures ... justice. 2. Without prejudice to the above, in the circumstances and facts of the Assessee's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in holding the rectification order u/s 154 despite the fact

ITO-20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Saheb Ali Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

dated 11.07.2018 as amended vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) dated 20.08.2018. 7. The appellant prays that the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on the above grounds be reversed and that of the AO be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground

Sunil Pagaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 54F

therefore, dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 5. As the assessee did not receive any favor from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(E). The present appeal is filed against the said order of the ld. NFAC/CIT(A) dated 27.04.2023 before this tribunal on the grounds ... made. The said amendment is curative amendment and has to be treated as retrospective in nature. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 445 (Bom); Chander Manwani v/s NFAC [2021] 129 taxmann.com 18 (Bom); Piramal Enterprises Ltd .v/s NFAC [2021] 132 taxmann.com 30 (Delhi); Naina lal Kidwai v/s NFAC etc.” Sunil Pagaria

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

This appeal is filed by revenue and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 28.02.2023 [here in after (NFAC)/CIT(A)] for assessment year 2020-21 which in turn arise from the order dated 29.09.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B ... Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Center [ ld. CIT(A)/NFAC]. The appeal of the assessee was allowed by the NFAC based on the detailed order. Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated