← 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

Wings Biotech LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-44(1), Delhi

ITA 531/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 531/Del/2023, A.Y. 2017-18 Wings Biotech Llp Vs. Acit C/O. Anil Jain Dd & Co., Circle-44(1) 611, Surya Kiran Building, New Delhi 19K.G. Marg, Delhi Pan : Aaafw9631P Appellant Respondent

Section 10Section 154Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80CSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA

Metro Filling Station, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -2(5), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Metro Filling Station, Vs Ito, 57.5 Km, Nh 8, Binola, Gurgaon, Ward-2(5), Haryana-122050. Guraon. Pan-Aaufm9340D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 06.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 234CSection 68

BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 06.01.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances

Piyush Sanawar, Deoband vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)4, Deoband

In the result, the appeal is noted as dismissed

ITA 1806/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 08.05.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly

Savitri Srirangam, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 50(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1588/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Savitri Srirangam, Vs Acit, Sriram’S Ias Tower, 10-B, Circle-50(1), Pusa Road, Bada Bazar Marg, New Delhi. Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060. Pan-Bkdps6606Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sombir Kumar, Fca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

Section 139Section 250

BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 27.03.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order passed by the learned Assistant

Intelligent Communication Systems India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 12(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 129/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaintelligent Vs. Ito Communication System Ward -12(2) India Ltd.,1St Floor, New Delhi Administrative Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi - 110 020 Pan No. Aaaci 0691 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri R. K. Doi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2023

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

PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 22.11.2022 arising from the intimation order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section

Srd Management Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1237/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 15.02.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Ld. CIT. (Appeals) has erred both

Ujjawala Power Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 106/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Submitted That The Quantum Addition In This Case Has Been Already Deleted By Itat Vide

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Bhupinder Singh Julka, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M

Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur vs. Nation Faceless Assessement Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 63/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotaiFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 57Section 68

Assessment Year : 2019-20 Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, 245 H, Rajlaxmi Marg, Near GOP Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001 PAN : ADNPG0426G .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. ADIT/JCIT/DCIT/ACIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jakhotai Revenue by : Shri Maurya Pratap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20-07-2023 घोषणा की तारीख ... VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08-02-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Dlehi (“NFAC”) for assessment year 2019-20. 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of NFAC, Delhi in confirming the order of AO without

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

Statement of P & L as an allowable business expenditure. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/- on account of deduction ... respect of captive power plant. Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,09,34,68,350/- on account of deduction

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1577/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

which reads as under: - “1 On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.15,04,545/- being 25% of total purchases of Rs.60 ... which reads as under: - “1 On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.5,40,644/- being 30% of total purchases of Rs.17

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

which reads as under: - “1 On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.15,04,545/- being 25% of total purchases of Rs.60 ... which reads as under: - “1 On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.5,40,644/- being 30% of total purchases of Rs.17

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1076/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

which reads as under: - “1 On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.15,04,545/- being 25% of total purchases of Rs.60 ... which reads as under: - “1 On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.5,40,644/- being 30% of total purchases of Rs.17

Narang Connect Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 7 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2083/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm Ita. No.2083/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Narang Connect Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit-7(3)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B-869, 2Nd Floor, Sarkar Mumbai-400020. Heritage, Kane Road, Bandstand, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5921E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 01.07.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Of Assessee Company Was Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 231/Mum/2023 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.6,07,937/-. 3. Despite Notice None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. From A Perusal Of The Records, It Is Discerned That The Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Sushil Kumar Jhabak, Bikaner vs. NFAC, Delhi / ITO, Ward-2, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ao With All Supporting Evidence But Ld. Ao Ignored While Relevant Facts So The Addition Made By Ao For Treating The Cash Deposit Rs. 5,50,000/- Unexplained & Charged Tax At A Special Rate Which Was Not Ought To So It Is Deserve To Be Deleted. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C. 3.The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Ground Sat Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143Section 234BSection 69A

JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA Nos. 10/Jodh/2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2017-18) Sushil Kumar Jhabak Vs NFAC, Delhi/ Near Arunoday vidhya ITO, Mandir, New Lane Ward-2(1), Gangashahar Karnani Bikaner. Mohalla, Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AENPJ 8633 B (Virtual hearing ... been availed and hence, the same is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee not received any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed against the said order of the ld. NFAC dated 30.12.2021 before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated in para

Shri Ashwani Kumar, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Batala

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 189/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

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

Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250

ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-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

Aamina Charitable Trust, Pulwama vs. Income Tax Officer ( Exemptions), Jammu

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 162/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 144BSection 250Section 57

ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-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 ... impugned order was emanated from the order of I.T.A. No. 162/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2019-20 the ld. DCIT/ACIT, NFAC, Delhi, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 144B of the Act. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 101 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation

Shri Atma Ram, Nakodar vs. Income Tax Offiecer Ward, Nakodar

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

ITA 141/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.03.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18. 2 Atma Ram v. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, misdirected himself while confirming the addition of Rs.4,50,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. 2. That the action of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi in confirming the said addition is arbitrary, illegal being against law and facts

M/S. Action Batteries Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 124/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 36(1)

Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.03.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2020-21 arising out of the order passed u/s 154 by the Assessing Officer. 2 Action Batteries

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- II, Bathinda vs. Measage Jagtar Singh Prabhdayal, Fazilka

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 408/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH