“NFAC”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B48,618 judgments

The decision most relied on for NFAC is Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (174 Taxmann.com 1203), cited in 43 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on NFAC

Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

174 Taxmann.com 1203 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

Where the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) have concurrent jurisdiction, a notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid, provided no prejudice is caused to the assessee.

Aggarwal v. NFAC

127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court

citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC

142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

When initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) must specify the limb of the charge, indicating whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This requirement is essential for valid penalty proceedings.

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC

145 Taxmann.com 235 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

The ITAT held that failure to file Form 67 by the due date for filing the return of income is not fatal to the claim for foreign tax credit. The appellate authority can condone the delay in filing Form 67.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Sanjay Gupta v. CIT

366 ITR 18 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

When the quantum of income is remanded to the Assessing Officer, the issue of penalty for undisclosed income should also be remanded to the Assessing Officer.

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC

157 Taxmann.com 749 · 2023 · Reported

citing judgments

A penalty levied for misreporting under section 270A is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to establish how the assessee's case falls within the specific instances of misreporting mentioned in section 270A(9). This requires an application of mind and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing NFAC

Balkrishna Dhondiram Thorwat, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1350/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Samdani , Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(d)

Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred these appeals against the orders dated 09-02-2023 and 24.03.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner)’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 2. As the issue and facts involved in both

Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-53, Mumbai

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

ITA 134/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary (Jm)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12A

Pronouncement 18.07.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by NFAC for assessment year 2016-17. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on the following issues:- (a) Assessment of Corpus Donations

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Parag Modi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

Choudhry, JM: The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 22.02.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner)’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. As per the Assessing Officer (AO) case, the Assessee

Samco Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1328/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsamco Securities Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Appeal A/1004, Naman Midtown, Centre (Nfac) Senapati Bapat Road, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics2455A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ram Krishna Kedia Date Of Hearing 06.07.2023 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 Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Disallowance U/S. 14A Of Rs. 1,51,214/- Made By The Ld Ao, Without Appreciating Facts, Submissions & Evidences In Proper Perspective & Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons 2. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Which Is Bad In Law & Violating The Principle Of Natural Justice As Ld Cit(A) Passed Order Without Giving Opportunity Of Virtual Online Hearing & Also Without Disposing Ground No. 3 Of Appeal Regarding "Assessment Order Contrary To The Principle Of Natural Justice".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Samco Securities Ltd. Vs. NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Samco Securities Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Appeal A/1004, Naman Midtown, Centre (NFAC) Senapati Bapat Road, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR ... आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi, dated 20.02.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

M/S Super Emirates Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward 28(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1314/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1312 & 1314/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2011-12 To 2012-13)

For Appellant: Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

Section 145Section 147

circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ("NFAC") [Ld. CIT (A)'] be held as bad and illegal, as: (i) The same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme

M/S Super Emirates Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 28(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1312/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1312 & 1314/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2011-12 To 2012-13)

For Appellant: Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

Section 145Section 147

Balkrishna Dhondiram Thorwat, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-27(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1093/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Samdani , Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(d)

ITO 4(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zee Bangles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 815/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer 4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Zee Bangles Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 648, 6 Th Floor, 124, Mahavir Swami Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mandir, Zaveri Bazar, Road, Maharashtra Opp Kharakuwa Zaveri 400 020 Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacz6000G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Anil Kumar DasFor Respondent: Vimal Punamiya

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, dated 05.12.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Revenue has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances ... case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC was not justified in facts and in law in deleting the addition made on account of specified currency notes deposited during demonetization period since the assessee company did not furnish details of cash deposits made in earlier year or subsequent year as per clear

M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Cir 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1968/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd Of Return U/S.139(1). In Both The Years Prima Facie Adjustments Have Been Made U/S.143(1) Disallowing The Payment Of Employees Pf & Esic U/S. 36(1)(Va) On The Ground That Same Has Been Paid After Due Date Prescribed Of The Respective Acts.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed against separate impugned orders dated 10/08/2021 for the A.Y.2018-19 and 12/08/2021 for the A.Y.2019-20 passed by NFAC Delhi in relation to adjustments made u/s.143(1). 2. In both the years assessee has challenged disallowance of employee’s share to provident fund

M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Cir 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1967/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Chinari Rohini Subudhi, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 23/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Sundeep Sundeep Haridas, Haridas, Prop. Prop. Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Sundardas D Unsraj, College Sundardas D Unsraj, College Cuttack Square, Cuttack Square, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadp 5404 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Cit : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, CIT

Section 194ASection 40

assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi , NFAC, Delhi dated 1.2.2023 in Appeal No.ITBA ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1049311803(1) 23/1049311803(1) for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2011. 2. Shri Mohit Sheth ... Appellant : Sundeep Haridas, Prop. Sundardas D unsraj, College Square, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-1(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

Dilip Karamakar, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

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

ITA 194/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Dilip Dilip Karmakar, Karmakar, At/Po: At/Po: Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Acit, Central Circle, Kaligali, Kaligali, Chandinichowk, Chandinichowk, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agdpk 0470 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Swanay Mohanty Swanay Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/0 /07/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Swanay MohantyFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant Dilip Karmakar, At/PO: Kaligali, Chandinichowk, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: ITO, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on Sr.PS 2. Draft

Dilip Kumar Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 178/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Agarwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.178/CTK/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dilip Kumar Jena, Vs ACIT (NFAC), Delhi Plot No.2508, Old Town-2, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar PAN No. :AGDPJ 2962 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri ... Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 13.03.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050679153(1), for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. At the time of hearing, specific question was asked to the assessee

Santosh Sasmal, Paradeep vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 176/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Santosh Santosh Sasmal, Sasmal, At: At: Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Atharbanki, Atharbanki, Cuttack Bijayachandrapur, Bijayachandrapur, Paradeep, Paradeep, Dist: Dist: Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Alups 0782 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/0 /07/2023 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, Delhi , Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.3.2023 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1050784944 50784944(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Sri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi , NFAC, Delhi dated 15.3.2023 in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050784944 50784944(1) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena ... revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT( It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has passed order A), NFAC has passed order exparte without hearing the assessee. It was the submission that the exparte without hearing the assessee

New Light Facility Management, Jlandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 (3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 29.03.2023 in respect of Assessment Year 2020-21 challenging there in the 2 New Light Facility Management v. ITO jurisdiction of the CIT(A) passing ... facie largest adjustments and there is no mistake apparent from the record to be rectified the order dated 28.09.2022 of the worthy CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. He pleaded that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the order passed

Gulmarg Devlopment Authority, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer ( TDS), Srinagar

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 111/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

Meena, AM: Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi even dated 07.04.2022 in respect of Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) wherein the appellant assessee has challenged

Harsha Shah, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2934/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Sharma, CA

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275

Date of Hearing : 12.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of NFAC, New Delhi dated 28.10.2022 for AY 2015-16. 2. The grounds of assessee are as follows:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Samir Sood, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2669/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18 Samir Sood, The Nfac-Cit Appeal, Delhi 110002 G-10, Maharani Bagh, Delhi 110065 Pan Aavps 5830 M Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Manoj Kumar, Ca For Revenue : Shri S.L Anuragi, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 90

DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samir Sood, The NFAC-CIT Appeal, Delhi 110002 G-10, Maharani Bagh, Delhi 110065 PAN AAVPS 5830 M vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Manoj Kumar, CA For Revenue : Shri ... Date of Hearing : 01.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of NFAC, New Delhi dated 26.08.2022 for AY 2017-18. 2. The grounds of assessee are as follows:- 1. The Appellate Order of the NFAC /CIT

Digp Gc Crpf, Nagpur vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the above fourteen appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 309/NAG/2022[2019-2022 Qtr-4]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 Jul 2023

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 200Section 234E

assessee for the various assessment years mentioned in the caption emanates from the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] levying late fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for delay in filing the TDS returns. 2. Since the identical facts and common

Digp Gc Crpf, Nagpur vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, all the above fourteen appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 308/NAG/2022[2019-2020 Qtr. 3]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 Jul 2023

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 200Section 234E