← All Phrases

“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
43
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
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

Deloitte India Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1202/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Revised Return, Therefore The Appellant Ought To Have Been Allowed Entire Foreign Tax Relief Of Rs. 2,82,44,841. 1.3 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Rule 128 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 Does Not Provide For Disallowance Of Foreign Tax Relief In Case Of Filing Of Revised Form 67 Along With The Revised Return. 1.4 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Granted The Balance Foreign Tax Relief Amounting To Rs. 1,34,86,569 Since The Appellant Has Filed The Revised Form 67 Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Revised Return Of Income.

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 90(2)

BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Deloitte India Vs. National Faceless Advisory Services Appeal Centre (NFAC) Private Limited Delhi Tower 3, 27th-32nd Floor One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road West, Mumbai- 400 013 PAN/GIR No.AADCD4866D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee ... AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 13/02/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the adjustment made u/s.143(1) for the A.Y.2020-21. 2. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. Short grant of Foreign Tax Relief

Linfox Logistics (India) Pvt. Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (10)(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 120/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 234CSection 270ASection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter 2 Ms. Linfox Logistic Ind.P.Ltd. referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1702/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledipen Kumarpal Parekh Vs. Assessing Officer, 603, Patel Niwas, Sainath Nfac, New Delhi Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 4000064. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6112D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashwin Kashinath.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dipen Kumarpal Parekh Vs. Assessing Officer, 603, Patel Niwas, Sainath NFAC, New Delhi Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 4000064. PAN/GIR No. : AADPP6112D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ashwin Kashinath.AR Respondent by : Shri R.P. Veena.DR Date of Hearing ... PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s 154 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the order

Uttamchand P. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 996/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar Meena
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Uttamchand P. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 995/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar Meena
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

T.C. Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 528/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Allowing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 89Section 90Section 90ASection 91

BALAGANESH AM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-9/10682/2019-20 against the order Page 1 of 4 T.C. Healthcare

Magpie Marketing LLP, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1999/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member)

तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R This appeal has been filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 22.05.2023 for AY 2010-11. 2. The Ld. Sr. DR, at the very outset, agreed to the submission of Ld. Assessee’s Representative

Neha Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2020-21 Neha Kapoor Vs. Ito, Ward 70(1), C/O C.S. Anand, Advocate, New Delhi, 104 Pankaj Tower 10 Lsc, Savita Vihar, New Delhi Pan Biopk2958N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Department By: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of 29.08.2023 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.11.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), NFAC Delhi (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the peculiar

Yogesh Kumar Agarwal, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 105/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), NFAC Delhi (CIT(A)) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order dated

Vivek Dutta, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Faridabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3001/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 10Section 143(1)

assessee, are directed against separate orders of even date passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 03.11.2022, pertaining to the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 3000/Del/2022

Vivek Dutta, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Faridabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3000/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 10Section 143(1)

assessee, are directed against separate orders of even date passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 03.11.2022, pertaining to the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 3000/Del/2022

Tina Kalra, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-45(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2931/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatasstt. Yr: 2020-21

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

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25.10.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances

Aamor Inox Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle -1(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2618/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Aamor Inox Ltd. DCIT, Circle-1 B-29, Ashok Vihar National Faceless Appeal Phase-I Vs. Centre, (NFAC) New Delhi-110 052 Delhi PAN-AAFCA 0194B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Suresh K. Gupta, CA Respondent by Mr. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date ... BALAGANESH AM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in Appeal No. NFAC/17-18/10034828 dated 14/10/2022 against the order passed by CPC, Banglore (hereinafter referred

M/S. Ahiliabai Sardessai, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Panaji

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

ITA 8/PAN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.08/Pan/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ahiliabai Sardessai, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Panaji. 301, Lotus Court, M. G. Road, St. Inez Junction, Panaji- 403001. Pan : Aagfa9044G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. J. Prabhudesai Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 26.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Mining. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 30.09.2014 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.4,92,14,101/- & The Same Was Revised At Loss

For Appellant: Shri N. J. PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 26.03.2021 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged ... u/s14A and Rs.48,45,698/- u/s 41(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order, confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) and deleted

Ratnam Jute Pvt Ltd, Rajam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 212/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Ratnam Jute (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-1, Palakonda Road, Ward-3 Rajam, Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Aabcr4024P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053339971(1), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 06.12.2016 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Private Limited Company, Doing Business In Trading Of Raw Jute In The Name & Style Of 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Reddy, Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053339971(1), arising out of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(1) of the Income

Rama Rao Kotha, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rama Rao Kotha Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-99, Near Indira Hospital Ward-2 Gokarakondavari Street Kakinada Korukonda East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bpipk0075H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 44A

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036714998(1) dated 02.01..2021, arising out of assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Shri Mahadevbhai Madhavjibhai Gami, Morbi vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Morbi

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

ITA 133/RJT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 133/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Mahadevbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward-3, Morbi Madhavjibhai Gami Vs. C/O. Jayeshbhai Harakhjibhai Sabapara, Amarnath Apartment, Block No. 303, Amarnath Society, Opp. Tapovan Schol, Near Priya Bakery, Morbi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akwpg0677P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, A.R. Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 29/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.03.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 15.09.2016 Passed By The Ito

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, A.R
Section 271(1)(c)

instant appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the penalty order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the ITO, ITA No. 133/Rjt/2023 (Shri Mahadevbhai M. Gami ... account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income against the assessee has been upheld. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC uphold the penalty on the ground that in spite of several notices, the assessee did not furnish any petition neither sought for adjournment before him. The said

D More Fashion Private Limited, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, (1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 426/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.426/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) D More Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 145, Mahalaxmi Marke Ring Tax, Circle-(1)(1)(1), Aaykar Vs. Road, Opp. Surat Textile Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Market, Surat-395002 New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 2876 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitali Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील

Shobhanaben Navinbhai Sorathia, Surat vs. Add./Jt.Deputy/Asst.CIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.424/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shobhanaben Navinbhai National Faceless Assessment Sorathia Centre, Delhi / Income Tax Vs. 2-19396-B, Sai Place, B/H Officer, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat Shubh Sankalp Apartment, Kailash Nagar, Sagrampura, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bdups 1425 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tinish R Mody, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

assessee are as follows:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned CIT(A) NFAC DELHI erred in confirming the penalty levied by the learned A.O to the tune of Rs.10,000/- without considering the facts of the case, favourably

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. Priyanshi Textile Private Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.199/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Priyanshi Textile Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), C/2, Plot No.74-79, Kim Sayan Vs. Surat, Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Road, Sunrise Interagated Textile Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Park, Kareli, Olpad, Surat- Gate, Surat-395001 394540 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacy 4125 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Nfac/Ld. Cit(A) For Short] Dated 30.04.2022, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “(I) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,72,33,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit In The Form Of Unsecured Loan U/S 68 Of The Act As The Assessee Has Failed To Prove Bona Fide Of The Transaction Within The Meaning Of Section 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,08,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Unexplained Share Capital & Share Premium U/S 68 Of The Act, Since The Assessee Failed To Prove The Source Of Source.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर