← 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

Nitushree Patra, Paniapada vs. DCIT Asmnt Circle-2, Cuttack

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

ITA 222/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Nitushree Patra, At: Paniapada, Nitushree Patra, At: Paniapada, Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Po: Aruinodaya Market, Link Po: Aruinodaya Market, Link Cuttack Road, Cuttack Road, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agkpp 1787 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.K.MishraFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 144

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), CIT(A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi, Delhi, dated 17.11.2022 17.11.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023 /NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1047472507(1), in the matter of assessment 24/1047472507(1), in the matter of assessment under ... Appellabnt: Nitushree Patra, At: Paniapada, PO: Aruinodaya Market, Link Road, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: DCIT, ASMNT Circle 2(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Arati Behera, Cuttack vs. DCIT Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 214/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Arati Behera, At: Ranihat Po: Arati Behera, At: Ranihat Po: Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aerpm 0403 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 250(6)

assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 25.5.2023 in Appeal No.ITBA ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053191331(1) 24/1053191331(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty ... Appellant : Arati Behera, At: Ranihat PO: Buxi Bazar, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: DCIT, ASMNT Circle 2(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

M/S. Maa Tarani Logistics Ltd, Joda vs. ACIT Cir.-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), , NFAC, NFAC, Delhi, dated 27.3.2023 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep ... Appellant : M/s Maa Tarani Logistics Ltd., Unchabali, PO: Bamabri, Via- Joda, Keonjhar 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

M/S. Topman International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Topman International Ltd. Acit, Circle – 11(3)(1) J-303, 3Rd Floor, Tex Centre, Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Near Hdfc Bank, Off Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Chandiwali Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18. 2. The assessee

Dcitm Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Invenire Petrodyne Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1793/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrydcit, Circle - 14(1)(2) M/S. Invenire Petrodyne Ltd. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor The Metropolitan, Plot No. C26/27 E-Block, 5Th Floor, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai 400020 Bandra (East), Mumbai (Mahrashtra ) -400051 Pan – Aaact0090N Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. Ar Respondent By: None (Adjournment Letter) Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.08.2023 O R D E R Per: N.K. Choudhry, Jm This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For Ay 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao), Vide Order Dated 15.05.2018 Under Section 154 Of The Act, Though Rectified The Original Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (3) Of The Act, However, Did Not Grant Interest On Refund Arising Out Of The Self-Assessment Tax Paid By The Assessee Under Section 244A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. ARFor Respondent: None (Adjournment letter)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(aa)Section 250

Assessee against the order dated 20.03.2023 impugned herein passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (in short ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for AY 2014-15. 2. In the instant case

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anantnath Silk Mills Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)For Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 68

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.03.2023 for AY. 2018-19. 2. The main grievance of the revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.70 Lakhs

M/S Arandi Investment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1707/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

noted that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 13.06.2016 and the same was later on migrated to the NFAC in 2020. And it is noted that the notices were issued after the migration on 23.12.2020, 24.02.2021 and 03.02.2022 (which were during the period ... passed on 18.03.2023. Thus, it is noted that except the notice issued on 11.01.2023, the other notices has been issued (after migrating to the NFAC) during the midst of Covid-19 pandemic period. Therefore, we find force in the ground no. 3 of the assessee that assessee didn

Surya & Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3), Mumbai

ITA 1689/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Surya & Company A C I T - 17(3) 20/26 Tawa Lane Kautilya Bhawan Abdul Rehman Street Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pydhonie, Mumbai 400003 Bandra(East), Mumbai 400003 Pan – Aaafs6086L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.08.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. DR
Section 250

been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.03.2023 impugned herein passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14. 2. In this case

Candy Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 6(2)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1358/MUM/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Candy Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer- C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal 6(2)(1) Apartment, Taki Road Vs. Room No. 510, 5Th Floor Tulinj, Nallasopara (E) Ayakar Bhawan, M. K . Road, Thane 401209 Mumbai-400020 Pan – Aaacc2733M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ld. Ca Respondent By: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:21.08.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

Assessee against the order dated 20.02.2023 impugned herein passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2004-05. 2. In this case

Mr. Narayana Nippani Rao, Mumba vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 1600/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Narayana Nippani Rao Adit, Cpc 22, Revati Nofra Near R. C. Church, Bangalore, Karnataka Vs. Colaba, Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: Shri Karan VakhariaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2019-20. 2. The assessee

Shri Amrik Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (4), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 198/ASR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 154Section 250

Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. NFAC, Delhi, (in brevity ‘the CIT (A)’) order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year

Surjit Memorial Educational Society, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward ( Exemptions), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. NFAC, Delhi, (in brevity ‘the CIT (A)’) order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year

ITO, Ward-77(3), New Delhi vs. Silverglades Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 677/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 194CSection 2Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 3(3)(ii)

captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 04.02.2023 arising from the order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 201(1)/201

Sonia Chawla, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 669/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Girish Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 12.01.2023 arising from the rectification order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 154 of the Income

Laurels (India) Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2887/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.M. Garglaurels (India) Impex Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C.O. M/S. Shri Ram ‘G’ Circle-13(1), Assocaites, B-9/B, First Floor, Delhi Kalka Ji, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacs9311B

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.11.2022 for AY 2020-21. 2. The captioned appeal relates to Assessment Years 2020-21 involving issue of disallowance of expenditure towards employees contribution to ESIC/PF under

Shri Shivashankar Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Gokak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

In the result, stay application and the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 77/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Saidappa Gadadi, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P

PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The stay application and the appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 21.02.2023 for A.Y.2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the time of hearing, ld.AR submits that he wants to withdraw ... deduction by way of expenses for earning income was worked out. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed the appeal before the NFAC. The NFAC while adjudicating the appeal has observed that assessee had made a request for rectification stating that they had during the course of assessment

Shri Lokeshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Niyamit, Lokapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 & Tps, Bagalkot

In the result, stay application of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn and that the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/PAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) S.A.No. 05/Pan/2023 & Shri Lokeshwar Co-Operative Vs Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Credit Society Niyamit Bagalkot. Lokapur, Tq. Mudhol, Dist. Bagalkot Pan: Aaals 2253 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Saidappa Gadadi, Ca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: The Stay Application & The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 23.02.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Saidappa Gadadi, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The stay application and the appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 23.02.2023 for A.Y.2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the time of hearing, ld.AR submits that he wants to withdraw ... action of the AO, the assessee filed an application u/sec. 154 which was also rejected. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the NFAC with a delay of 83 days. The NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation i.e. 83 days delay in filing

Shree Adinath Minority Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Nos.115 & 117/PAN/2022 and ITA Nos.40 & 42/PAN/2023 preferred by the assessee(s) emanates from the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, ‘NFAC’], Delhi, dated 19/07/2022 ITA Nos. 40 & 42/PAN/2023 Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh & Ors. for A.Y.2017-18; dated 28/09/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19; dated 20/12/2022

Ramanaguli Group Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Ankola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 40/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Nos.115 & 117/PAN/2022 and ITA Nos.40 & 42/PAN/2023 preferred by the assessee(s) emanates from the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, ‘NFAC’], Delhi, dated 19/07/2022 ITA Nos. 40 & 42/PAN/2023 Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh & Ors. for A.Y.2017-18; dated 28/09/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19; dated 20/12/2022

Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Souhard Sahakari Ny, Sunadholi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

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

ITA 63/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Gokak. Sunadholi, Tal – Gokak, Dist. Belagavi, Karnataka. Pan: Aacas 9316 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sateesh Nadagouda, Ca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (For Short, ‘Nfac’), Dated 14.12.2021 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Sateesh Nadagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, ‘NFAC’), dated 14.12.2021 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. Despite service of notices on various dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee ... application for adjournment is filed before the NFAC. Therefore, NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the NFAC has passed an ex-parte ITA No.63 /PAN/2022 Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Souhard