“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

M/S.Zenith Cement and Steels, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, Calicut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 956/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.P.Vinod Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

adjudicated by it, and for which he would refer to para 3 of the ‘Statement of Facts’ before the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. It is unfortunate that the assessee is constrained to file second appeal on matters which

Carmalite Convent Ramapuram, Ramapuram vs. CIT (Exemptions), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 905/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.P.J.Johney, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order dated 08.08.2022 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC, Delhi), confirming the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter), on the processing of the assessee

Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Gadhethariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-3 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 117/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2017-18 Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1) Gadhethariya Rajkot. Flat B/21, Copper Elegance Nr.Ambika Township, Mavdi Police Ground Rajkot, Gujarat Pan : Ahwpg 7174 J

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 30.12.2022 pertaining

Mr Murtuza Kayamali Pardawala, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(4), 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 1944/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Murtuza Kayamali Pardawala, The Ito Ward-17(2)(4), 3602, 36Th Floor, Marathom Era- Room No. 123-B/E, 1St Vs. Ii, Nextgen Chs Ltd., Veer Santaji Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Lane, Off. G.K. Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400020. (Wes), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aghpp 7102 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Sakina Amreliwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasbir S. Chouhan, CIT-DR

Section 68

making addition of deemed rental income of Rs. 1,34,704 to income from house property and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC has erred in confirming the same. 2. The addition of deemed rental income of Rs. 1,34,704 is incorrect and constitutes double addition ... unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC has erred in and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC has erred in and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC has erred in confirming the same. confirming

Manhar Yarns Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO-Ward -1(5), Faridabad

ITA 2300/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

Pronouncement 06.09.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 25.08.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal reads as under:- “1. That the NFAC has erred ... without providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is against the Principle of Natural Justice. 2. That the NFAC did not appreciate that assessment in the above case was set aside by Hon’ble ITAT to be passed denovo hence aforesaid penalty becomes infructuous

Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshrai Bahadur Narain Singh Vs. Acit Sugar Mills Ltd., Circle – 21(1) Plot No.5, B- Block, Delhi Middle Circle – Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr 0924 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023

Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, dated 24.05.2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Pressing into service the sole ground of assessee, the Learned Counsel drew our attention towards pages

AO, CPC Bengaluru, Karnataka vs. Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Panipat (Haryana)

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

ITA 1458/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usao Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Singh Cpc House No.112, Near Shiv Deep Bengaluru Public School, Refiney Township Karnataka Road, Vpo Dadlana, Panipat Haryana – 132 140 Pan No. Aadck 5251 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 22.09.2021 arising from the intimation order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section

Remote Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Alto Betim vs. Assessing Officer, Ward - 2(4), Panaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 35/PAN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.34 & 35/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 To 2019-20 Remote Software Solutions Vs. Assessing Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), Panaji. H.No.1661, Near Tarun Bharat, Alto Betim, Penha De Franca-Goa- 403521. Pan : Aadcr0144G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.03.2022 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.34/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 16.03.2022 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both ... paid before due date for filing of Return of Income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival

Remote Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Alto Betim vs. Assessing Officer, Ward - 2(4), Panaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 34/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Gajraj Giri, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

ITA 222/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajraj Giri S/O. Raghuraj Giri, Sai Mandir Road, Jaharbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Afgpg0112E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

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 30.05.2023, which arises from the order passed by the AO under Sec. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated

Ajay Chouhan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 219/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.219/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ajay Chouhan Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income First Floor, Chouhan Estate Tax-1(1) Supela, Bhilai-490 023 32/32 Bunglow, Bhailai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Acfpc 0549K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06 /09/2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 02.06.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Exemption Of Rs.47,90,164 Claimed U/S 54B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961. 2) The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 3) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Alter Or Omit All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal In The Interest Of Justice.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 548Section 54B

captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 02.06.2023 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee are as under ... purposes as in the case of original asset. With such contentions, the assessee challenged the decision of Ld. AO before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, however, the contentions of the assessee were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) as supported with cogent material, thus, was treated as devoid

Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemetion 2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti V Income Tax Officer 214, Shivom Vihar Raipur-492 013 S Exemption-2 Chhattisgarh Raipur Pan: Aahts 6464M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal & Shubham Agarwal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.10.2022 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2015-16, Instituted Against The Penalty Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 28.06.2018. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Penalty Levied By The Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) At Rs.2,40,630/- Rejecting The Explanation. Prayed That Provisions Of Sec.271(1)(C) Are Not Applicable, Penalty Levied At Rs.2,40,630/- Kindly Be Cancelled. 2. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Further Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied At Rs. 2,40,630/- U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao, Though The Ld. Ao Did Not Allow Opportunity To The Appellant As To For Which Default, Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated. Prayed To Cancel The Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal & ShubhamFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.10.2022 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2015-16, instituted against the penalty order by Ld. Assessing Officer ... concealment of income by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. However, the contentions of the assessee were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Now, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the decision

Kamaljeet Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-Range 3, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 253/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 251, 252 & 253/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Kamaljeet Kaur Gill Shukla Colony, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ahkpg7831Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-3, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 274

captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25.10.2022 which in turn arises from the order passed by the JCIT, Range-3, Raipur u/s.271E of the Income ... Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the order of the JCIT, Range-3, Raipur, wherein the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-Range-3, Raipur has erred in imposing penalty

Kamaljeet Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-Range 3, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 252/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 274

Kamaljeet Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-Range 3, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 251/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271ESection 274

Rajesh Shantilal Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Navsari, Navsari

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

ITA 448/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat06 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.448/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Rajesh Shantilal Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 432 New Gidc, Kabilore-396424 Tax, Navsari Circle, Navsari- Vs [Pan Begps 3146 J] 396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 28.05.2016. The assesse filed various submissions during physical hearings. However, later on, the appeal was migrated before NFAC in terms of Government Scheme. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that thereafter assessee received notice regarding to furnish 2 Rajesh Shantilal Shah submission

Samrat Remedies Limited, Mumbai vs. AO National E-Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 420/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.419 & 420/Srt/2023 (Ays 2016-17 & 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Samrat Remedies Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 208, 2Nd Floor, De Elmas, Tax, Vapi Circle, Income Tax Pahadi Village, Sonawala Office, Vapi, 8Th Floor, Fortune Cross Lane No.2, Square-Ii, Above Tbz, Chala, Vs Goregaon East Vapi -396191 Mumbai-400063 Pan : Aajcs 3844 G National E-Assessment Centre Delhi अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. CIT(A) dated 25.05.2023 & 27.05.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2016-17 and 2018-19 respectively, which in turn arose out separate assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer

Samrat Remedies Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 419/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P Ltd, Vashi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 3Section 68

Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the NFAC (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.03.2023 for A.Y. 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following grounds before us: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Devender Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 933/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

05/09/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA No.931/Del/2023, and 933/Del/2023 are three separate appeals by the assessee preferred against three separate orders of NFAC dated 26.12.2022 pertaining to A.Y.2020-21, 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. Since common issues are involved in the captioned appeals they are decided by this ... reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeals on time. The delay is condoned. 6. We have carefully perused the orders of the NFAC and there is no dispute that there was a delay in depositing the EPF/ESI. However, the Counsel for the assessee stated that the delay should