← 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

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 218/RPR/2022[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jul 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.216, 217 & 218/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96) Sh. Santosh Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer-1(1), Opp. P.N. Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Bhilai Durg Pan No. : Afypj6194D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Sh. R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 271ASection 44A

same assessee for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 against separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, each dated 21.09.20222. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all the assessment years are common, therefore, the grounds of appeal raised ... penalty of Rs.25,000/- under section 271A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed appeals before the learned CIT(A)-NFAC. But again, the assessee was non-responsive. On several occasions when the notice for hearing issued, a chart showing such conduct of the assessee

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 217/RPR/2022[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jul 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.216, 217 & 218/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96) Sh. Santosh Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer-1(1), Opp. P.N. Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Bhilai Durg Pan No. : Afypj6194D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Sh. R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 271ASection 44A

same assessee for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 against separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, each dated 21.09.20222. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all the assessment years are common, therefore, the grounds of appeal raised ... penalty of Rs.25,000/- under section 271A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed appeals before the learned CIT(A)-NFAC. But again, the assessee was non-responsive. On several occasions when the notice for hearing issued, a chart showing such conduct of the assessee

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 216/RPR/2022[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jul 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.216, 217 & 218/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96) Sh. Santosh Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer-1(1), Opp. P.N. Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Bhilai Durg Pan No. : Afypj6194D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Sh. R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 271ASection 44A

same assessee for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 against separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, each dated 21.09.20222. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all the assessment years are common, therefore, the grounds of appeal raised ... penalty of Rs.25,000/- under section 271A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed appeals before the learned CIT(A)-NFAC. But again, the assessee was non-responsive. On several occasions when the notice for hearing issued, a chart showing such conduct of the assessee

Akshar Infra, Bharuch vs. ITO(TDS), Bharucn, Bharuch

In the result, the ground Nos

ITA 276/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.276/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Akshar Infra Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bharuch, Hari Kunj, R.S.No.347, Old N.H.S. Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Nr. Samrajya School, 356069 Andada, Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393001 Pan No. Abbfa 5016 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

M/S. Mauli Sai Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 318/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee had filed written submissions as well as appeared physically before the First Appellate Authority. Later on the assessee’s case was transferred to NFAC and after a long gap, the notices were sent to the assessee, which cannot be responded by the authorised representative. He also pointed out that ... interest of justice matter 3 M/s. Mauli Sai Developers Pvt. Ltd. should be restored back to the file of First Appellate Authority (NFAC) so as to make proper representation on facts. 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, we find that

M/S Loyal Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1563/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147

B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal pointing out certain discrepancies in Form No.35

Shree Shagun Financial Services, Mumbai vs. ITO-33(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1558/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Sshree Shagun Ito-33(2)(3), Financial Services, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 196-A, Tara House, M.K.Road, Vs. Dr. Vhigasa Street, Mumbai-400020. Cavel X Lane No.8, Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abtfs0352F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh .D. Gaikwad, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

19/07/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

Ankush Ramrao Shinde, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the same terms

ITA 1054/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1053/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1054/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ankush Ramrao Shinde Income Tax Officer 19A, Cosmos Horizon Skyline - 20(1)(1), Mumbai Chs, Pokharan Road 2, Room No. 124, 1St Floor, Versus Thane- 400601 Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aetps2857J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per N K Choudhry: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Even Dated 31St March, 2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi, {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’ U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ays 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 69

Assessee against the orders even dated 31st March, 2023 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi, {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’ u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2 I.T.A

Ankush Ramrao Shinde, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the same terms

ITA 1053/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1053/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1054/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ankush Ramrao Shinde Income Tax Officer 19A, Cosmos Horizon Skyline - 20(1)(1), Mumbai Chs, Pokharan Road 2, Room No. 124, 1St Floor, Versus Thane- 400601 Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aetps2857J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per N K Choudhry: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Even Dated 31St March, 2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi, {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’ U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ays 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Naganath B. Pasale, Ld. DR
Section 148Section 250Section 69

Assessee against the orders even dated 31st March, 2023 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi, {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’ u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2 I.T.A

Sks Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Bangluru

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities hence, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Sks Enterprises Shop No. 2&3, Dcit, Cpc, Kings Apartment, Bengaluru 560500 Vs. Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abafs1216K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

with this and has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, and in Law, the CIT (A) NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made ofRs.5,80,629/- being payment of PF and ESIC dues under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act considering

Orissa Diploma Engineers Service Association, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 121/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.121/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Orissa Diploma Engineers Service Vs Dcit (Cpc), Bangalore Association, At-7, Kharabela Nagar, Sri Aurobindo Marga, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. :Aaato 0709 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23003.2021, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2020-21/1031681333(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 173 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit, Stating Therein That The Delay Was Occurred Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. Ld.Cit-Dr Also Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. In View Of The Above, We Condone The Delay Of 173 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee & The Appeal Is Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, CIT-DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23003.2021, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020-21/1031681333(1), for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 173 days. In this regard

Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO-2(5) Chandausi, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2090/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasahakari Ganna Vikas Vs. Ito-2(5), Samiti, Sikri Gate Chandausi Chandausi, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh-244 412 Pan No. Aaaaf 1459 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(v)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

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 29.06.2022 arising from the intimation order dated 14.03.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section

Sunderlal Chotmal Jain, Jamnagar vs. ITO, TDS Ward-3, Jamnagar

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

ITA 2/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamnagar. However The Assessing Officer Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 18-08-2015, 01-06-2016 That The Assessee Has Not Collected Tcs To The Tune Of Rs. 4,28,432/- Sale Of Scraps For The For The Relevant Assessment Year 2012-13 & Assesse Has Not Filed Statement In Form 27Eq.

Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

against the Appellate order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), arising out of the order passed under section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment ... interest of Rs. 3,25,608/-. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC wherein the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the I.T.A No. 02/Rjt/203 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 3 Shri Sundarlal Chotmal Jain Vs. ITO (TDS) ground that Form 27C were

Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Chakargadh Seva, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 30Section 80Section 801

आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2019-20, arises from order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05-04-2022, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken

Ameen Uddin, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(4), Bhopal

ITA 101/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ameen Uddin, I.T.O., 11, Kumharpura Road, 3(4), बनाम/ Galla Bazar, Bhopal Shahjahanabad, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaupu 8393 G Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.02.2016 passed by learned ITO, Ward-3(4), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 read with section ... cash-deposits made by assessee in Bank A/c. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in first appeal and made submissions but the CIT(A)-NFAC was not convinced and he upheld the AO’s action. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in this appeal before

Mrs Sunita Shyam Malpani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 344/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 144ASection 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax appeals (CIT(A)) NFAC passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances

Shree Raj Foundation, Mum vs. DDIT (E)-I(2), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shree Raj Foundation बिधम/ Ddit(E)-1(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Krishna [Now Ito (Exem), Ward- Vs. Kunj, Vl Mehta Rd, Jvpd 2(3), Mumbai] Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Income Tax Office, Mumbai-400056. Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts9658M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paresh Shaparia Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Foundation Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao Re-Opening The Assessment Of Ay 2009-10 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Following The Binding Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Ito (Sc) (259 Itr 19) & Jurisdictional High Court Decision In The Case Of Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd Vs. Acit (238 Itr 38) (Bom) & Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dcit (2008) (296 Itr 90) (Bom). 3. The Facts Relevant To The Legal Issue Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 Along With The Income & Expenditure Account, Balance-Sheet & Audit Report In Form No. 10B

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Sabarmati Capital One Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1642/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Ssabarmaticapitaloneltd, Dcit-14(3)(2), The Il & Fs Financial Aayakar Bhawan, बनाम/ Centre, Plot No. C-22, G M.K. Road, Vs. Block, Bkc, Bandra(E), New Marine Lines, Mumbai -400051. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacci8033N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule.CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

25/07/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Disallowance of expense

Meenu Ajay Pathak, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.- 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 155/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

assessment year 2015-16. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in passing the order dated 01.12.2022 upholding the action of the Ld. Income Tax Officer ... Sunrise Asian Ltd. were purchased by the assessee. 10. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the learned CIT(A), NFAC passed the impugned order without providing an opportunity of being heard through physical/video conferencing to the assessee. From the perusal of the impugned order

Suraj Air Flow Engineers, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-22(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1386/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsuraj Air Flow Engineers Vs. The Acit, Circle 22(3) 4, Ground Floor, Room No. 322, 3 Rd Floor, Akashdeep, 1St Road, T.P. Piramal Chambers, S. Vi, Santacruz (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 054 Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfs4159E Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : None Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 16.03.2023 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “(A) Addition On Account Of Alleged Cash Credits- Rs.77,80,000/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 22(3), Mumbai (Ao) Of Rs.77,80,000/- On Account Of Alleged Cash Credits By Holding That The Appellant Did Not File Application For Admitting The Additional Evidences By Providing Reasonable Cause To Admit The Same. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Invoking The Powers Vested In Him Under Section 250(4) While Not Considering The Additional Evidences Furnished By The Appellant.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 16.03.2023 for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “(A) Addition on account of alleged Cash Credits- Rs.77,80,000/- 1. The learned ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [CIT(A)] erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 22(3), Mumbai (AO) of Rs.77,80,000/- on account of alleged cash credits by holding that the appellant