“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

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Prop. M/S Hardik Jewellers, in Front of Arya Samaj Mandir, Bajaja Bazar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 17-04-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2015-16 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts ... therefore the appeal of assessee ought to have been allowed.’’ 2. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the excess stock of Rs.36,96,223/- offered for tax is correctly assessed by AO as business income taxable under normal provision

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1084/Mum/2023

Sankpal Developers, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-25(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1064/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1064/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sankpal Developers बिधम/ Ito, Ward-25(1)(1) 101-104, Haripriya 203, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Apartment, Sundervan Bandra Kurla Complex, Complex, Lokhandwala Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Cross Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abwfs4025Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 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 24.03.2023 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50 Lakhs On Account Of Alleged Bogus Loan Received By The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts, As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs. Nil. Later, The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That He Received Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay Choudhary, Shri Dharmichand Jain [Alleged Entry Operators] & Their Group Entities Are Providing Accommodation Entries Inter-Alia In The Nature Of Unsecured Loans & That Assessee Is Also A Beneficiary Of Such Activity. According To The Ao, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1064/Mum/2023

Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1076/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd. Top Floor, Mehta, Mahal, Cpc, 15, Mathew Road, Vs. Benaluru-560600 Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcd0528C

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

electronic mode" and, "the response received from the assessee, if any. shall be considered before making any adjustment," The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) confirmed the view of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) without following the provision of the Act, hence, the adjustment/disallowance of PF and ESIC in intimation ... ESIC payment was made before filing of return may be directed to be deleted. 2. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,05,44,018/- on account of PF and ESIC ITA Nos.1076/Mum/2022 Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2019-20 amount which

Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Dir Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1430/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cpc 106, Peninsula Centre, Vs. Bengaluru-560500 Parel, Mumbai-400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccm5872D

For Appellant: Mr. Sarla Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

assesee Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd. („the assessee/appellant‟) for assessment year 2019-20 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) [the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 23.07.2021 for assessment year 2019-20 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation passed

Kavita Rathore, Jaipur vs. ITO (TDS), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28.04.2022 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2014-15 which in turn arise from the order dated 15.01.2021 passed under section 201(1A) r.w.s 194IA of the Income

Jai Prakash Suwalka, Udaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-TDS, Udaipur

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

ITA 152/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 206C(1)Section 206C(6)Section 271CSection 273B

Appeal are hereby dismissed.” Jai Prakash Suwalka vs. Addl. CIT 8. 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 15.09.2022 before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated ... preferred an appeal against said order u/s 206C(6) on dated 30-06-2021 and it is pending for disposal before CIT(A), NFAC. 2. Meanwhile, the addl CIT, TDS without waiting for disposal of first appeal levied penalty u/s 271CA of Rs. 531,158/- for default in TCS. Aggrieved

Jai Prakash Suwalka, Udaipur vs. ITO, TDS, Udaipur

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

ITA 146/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(11)Section 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

Grounds of Appeal are hereby 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 15.09.2022 before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated in para 2 above ... sought. Jai Prakash Suwalka vs. ITO 3. So, the appellant is in appeal before this Hon'ble Bench against the order dated 24/03/2022 of NFAC, CIT (Appeal). Grounds of appeals are: 1. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirm

Creative Propmart Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Udaipur

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

ITA 117/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA

Shri Nirmal Singh S/O Shri Niranjan Singh, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 52/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

Meena, AM: Both the appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi even dated 04.01.2023 in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13. Nirmal Singh v. ITO 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee ... vide ground no. 7 pleaded that the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in upholding the re- assessment though no reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to explain his case. So, the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass denovo assessment

Shri Nirmal Singh S/ O Shri Niranjan Singh, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3 (4), Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 51/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148

Spl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2829/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargspl Industries Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Office No202, 2Nd Floor, Circle-24(1), Vikramadiyta Tower, Alaknand New Delhi Market, Kalkaji, South Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacs0343R Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv Sh. Shrey Jain, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/07/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 25.10.2022 for AY 2018-19. Application of assessee under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 2. The ld counsel of assessee submitted that the assessee seeks

Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048022425(1) arising out of assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated

Fishery Survey of India Employees Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.23/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Fishery Survey Of India Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit & Thrift Ward-1(1) Society Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour Complex Beach Road, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafat3533M] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048861637(1) Dated 17.01.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 24.12.2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Society Act Had Filed It’S Return Of Income On 2

For Appellant: Shri C Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048861637(1) dated 17.01.2023 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20, arising out of the order passed

Marturi Srinivasa Rao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Marturi Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-75, 2Nd Line Ward-1(1) Rajeev Nagar Colony Guntur Atchampet Post, Guntur [Pan : Bvnpm4138E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049765296(1) dated 15.02.2023, arising out of assessment order passed u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

Reddy, Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) dated 12.07.2022, arising out of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ... Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Commissiooner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is not justified in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for not reporting deemed dividend

Extol Wind Ltd, Bhopal vs. The ITO Ward 1 (3), Bhopal

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

ITA 30/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniextol Wind Ltd. Ito Ward 1(3) 104, Jahangirbad Barkhedi Bhopal Vs. Road, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8607 N Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023

Section 56(2)(viib)

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of share premium on right

Ina Hasmukh Satra, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-27(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1038/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Rifaur Rahmanina Hasmukh Satra, Ito, Ward 27(1)(4), B3, Hermitage 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower, बनाम/ Parimal Chs Ltd., Complex Vashi, Vs. Rb Mehta Road, Navi Mumbai, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400077. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapps8952C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita kaushik.DR

Section 143(2)Section 234Section 250Section 57

11/07/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A Grounds of Appeal

ITO, New Delhi vs. Anand Kumar Jain, Delhi

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

ITA 697/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Anand Kumar Jain Income Tax Officer H-1/81-82 Ward-36(1) 3rd Floor, Sector-16 Vs. NFAC Rohini New Delhi-110 002 Delhi-110 085 PAN-AFBPJ 2621J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Pooja Bansal, CA & Mr. Mohit Bansal, CA Respondent ... YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 25/03/2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: Page

Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva Sahakari Ssangh Niyamit, Hukkeri vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 89/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshalistay Application Nos.01, 02 & 03/Pan./2023 Arising Out Of Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 Along With Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 & Ita.Nos. 05 & 06/Pan./2020 Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sangh Bellad Ward-1, Bagewadi, Taluka Hukkeri, Dr. Ghogeri Building, Dist. Belagavi – 591 305 Vs. Belgaum Road, State Of Karnataka. Gokak – 591 307. Pan Aaaat0640C State Of Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shivanand Halbhavi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand HalbhaviFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)

Bellad Bagewadi, Belagavi.” The assessee’s former three appeals ITA.Nos.11, 89 & 116/PAN./2022 are directed against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1040779868(1), dated 15.03.2022, Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045397221(1), dated 12.09.2022 and Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 04.11.2022, involving