“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

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mum vs. Ac Circle-18(1), Mum

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

ITA 3167/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 23Section 23(2)Section 24

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3167/Mum/2022

The Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Belgavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Belagavi

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 38/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 038/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., 131, Hindwadi, Belgaum, Karnataka-590011 Pan: Aacat4514B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Belgaum . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against The Impugned Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048023500(1) Dt. 15/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] The Present Appeal Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048023500(1) dt. 15/12/2022 passed u/s 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereafter] by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereafter] the present appeal is instituted u/s 253(1) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Concisely stated facts born ... Credit Co-op. Bank and (ii) interest from national bank. 2.3 The denial of deduction was in the first stance assailed before the Ld. NFAC, who came to dismiss the appeal of the assessee confirming the findings of his tax authority below. 2.4 Aggrieved assessee challenged the impugned order

M/S Sangam Souhard Credit Sahakari Limited, Bagalkot vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeals are ALLOWED

ITA 30/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 001/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mallapur, Pg Main Rd., Ghataprabha, Karnataka-591306 Pan: Aaaas5624D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 030/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd., A/P. Galgali, Taluka-Bilgi, Dist.-Bagalkot-587117 Pan: Aaeas3685G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagouda For Ita No. 001& None For Ita No. 030 [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Two Appeals Of Different Assessee Are Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Against Respective Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagouda forFor Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80P

Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereafter] against respective orders passed u/s 250 of the Act by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereafter] for assessment year 2018-19 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 7 ITA No.001 & 030/PUN/2023 AY 2018-19 Belated Return ... first appellate authority in an appeal u/s 246(1) of the Act. By impugned DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047469390(1) dt. 17/11/2022 the Ld. NFAC pressing into service clause (ii) of section 80AC of the Act confirmed the disallowance. 4. Briefly stated facts of ITA No. 030/PAN/2023 are; The appellant

Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mallapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

Appeals are ALLOWED

ITA 1/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagouda forFor Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80P

The Omkar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Belagavi

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

ITA 84/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 84/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Omkar Urban Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd. A/P. : Kangral (Bk.), Belagavi. Pan: Aaaat3508P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 68Section 80ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] is directed against DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043826990(1) dt. 13/07/2022 of National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter] 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are; 2.1. The assessee ... these circumstances without offering any comment on merits of the case, we deem it fit to remand this issue to the file of Ld. NFAC with a direction to deal therewith in accordance with the applicable provisions of law and pass speaking order in terms of sub-section

Shri Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 105/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 105/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mahatma Basaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Chikod Rd., Nipani, Belagavi-591237. Pan: Aaaas2281C . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru (Karnataka) . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Represented Assessee By : Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 14/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By Present Appeal The Assessee Challenges Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short ‘Nfac’] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1045262282(1) Dt. 07/09/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] Which In Turn Ascended Out Of An Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru [In Short ‘Ao’] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [In Short ‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; By present appeal the assessee challenges order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ‘NFAC’] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1045262282(1) dt. 07/09/2022 passed u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] which in turn ascended ... owing to restricting the set-off of losses to ₹8,04,55,819/-. 2.2 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal to Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. During first appellate proceedings, the Ld. NFAC provided as much as seven opportunities, however of these six remained unresponded, whereas written

Moodabidre Town Municipality, Moodubidire vs. The Income Tax Officer, (TDS), Mangalore

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 002/Pan/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri B. Y. Chavan

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

relied by the appellant, we do not find ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 7 Moodabidre Town Municipality any infirmity with the action of Ld. NFAC in principle confirming the levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act for the period of delay attributable from 01/06/2015 till the date of furnishing

Indian Beauty & Hygiene Association, Mumbai vs. The ITO (E)-1(3), Mumbai

ITA 689/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Joginder Singh, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 8

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. The learned ... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in holding that the sum 2 M/s. Indian Beauty & Hygiene Association earned from Surplus of Seminar of Rs. 8,00,000/- is treated as other income which

M/S Rameshkumar Vyas, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1978/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar.)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “In the facts ... unexplained cash credits. 4. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) NFAC erred in confirming the above additions. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty

Neworder Exports Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1821/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 250

preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21/03/2023 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y.2012-13. 2 M/s. Neworder Exports

Ketan Jaysukhlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1657/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250

preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17/03/2023 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y.2009-10. 2 Shri Ketan Jaysukhlal Shah

M/S. Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1638/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Gyaneshwar Kataram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha (SR. AR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 55(2)(b)

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2018-19 on the grounds inter-alia that ... circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and 2 M/s. Neelkanth Mansions Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on facts in passing an erroneous Order u/s 250 which pertains to another Assessee and has been wrongly uploaded against our name

M/S. Fairmont Venture P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-9(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 250

preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30/01/2023 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y.2010-11. 2 M/s. Fairmont Venture

Urmila Lalmani Rai, Legal Heir, Mumbai vs. ACIT-27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1395/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Urmila Lalmani Rai, Legal Heir Of Late Acit- 27 (2) Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Vashi Lalmani Ramswaroop Rai Railway Station Commercial A-1/121, Mmrda Building, Wadala Complex, Vs. Vashi, Truck Terminal, Near Rto, Chembur, Navi Mumbai-400703 Wadala, Mumbai - 400037 Pan/Gir No. Aadpr6146D (Appellant) : (Respondent) : None Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Sunny Mathews, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

For Respondent: Shri Sunny Mathews, DR

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 54

following grounds of appeals: 1. General: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the order passed under 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 2. Assessment order passed ... dead person 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC failed to appreciate that the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on the dead using on dead and the order is void ab-initio, bad-in-law and liable to be quashed

Lalit Vithaldas Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-29(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1355/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 250Section 68

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2016-17 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “Appellant is aggrieved ... with the impugned order dated 20/02/2023 issued u/s. 250 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2016-17 issued by NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC). 2 M/s. Lalit Vithaldas Panchal 1. THAT, in consequence of impugned order dated 20/04/2023 intrinsically following additions were upheld by Id. NFAC made by AO vide

Rahul Ranjit Bhat, Mumbai vs. Asstt. DIT CPC-Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1340/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Return Of Income As Per Rule 128(9) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 In The Adjustment Made U/S.143(1).

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 39(1)Section 90

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 28/03/2023 passed by NFAC for the A.Y.2020-2021. 2. In the grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the denial of credit for foreign taxes of Rs.11,22,862/- on the ground that, Form

Kamalesh Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO-22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1151/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A), The Appellant Failed To Comply With The Notices Of Hearing & Therefore, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Dismissing The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Kishinchandani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147

present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 10/02/2023, 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 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

Kellogg India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2533/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Mr. AmolFor Respondent: Vachaspati Tripathi, Ld. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM I.T.A

Sonam Rajesh Rateria, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4030/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Sh.. Anurag Tripathi, Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM I.T.A. No. 4030/Mum/2019 Assessment Year

M/S. Khadi Grammodhyog Pratisthan, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1(2), Bangaluru / Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 14.02.2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2019-20 which in turn arise from the order dated 01.05.2020 passed under section 143(1) of the Income