“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

Nisha Properties & Developers Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Rourkela

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarita No Ita No.45/Ctk/2023: Assessment Year : Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Behera, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Assessment Year /CTK/20223: Assessment Year : 2018-19 ITA No.49/CTK/202 ITA No.49/CTK/2023: Assessment Year 3: Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nisha Nisha Properties Properties & & Vs. ITO(NFAC), ITO(NFAC), Development Limited Development Limited, AM- Rourkela. Rourkela. 44, Basanti Colony, 44, Basanti Colony, Rourkela PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee ... against the separate orders all dated 20.12.2022 of ld CIT(A), against the separate orders all dated 20.12.2022 of ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2010 NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012 11 to 2012-13 and ITA Nos.48 & ITA Nos.48 & 49/CTK/2023

Nisha Properties & Developers Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Rourkela

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/CTK/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarita No Ita No.45/Ctk/2023: Assessment Year : Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Behera, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

M/S. Chaitanya Industries Pvt. Ltd., Jajpur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarita Nos.18 To 19/Ctk/2023 23 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chaitanya Industries Pvt M/S. Chaitanya Industries Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At: Chorda, Po: Jajpur Ltd., At: Chorda, Po: Jajpur Cuttack Road, Dist: Jajpur Road, Dist: Jajpur Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 7-61 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None(Adjournment Petition) (Adjournment Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.11.2022 29.11.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 /Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047689634(1)(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & For The Assessment Year 2014 & For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: None(Adjournment petition)For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

filed by the assessee against the filed by the assessee against the separate orders of of the the ld ld CIT(A) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 29.11.2022 29.11.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 /NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047689634(1)(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2012-13 and for the assessment ... assessee has stated that as the response compliance portal was disabled, the assessee could not submit the compliance before the ld CIT(A), NFAC, hence the assessee was deprived of natural justice. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also that the assessee

M/S. Chaitanya Industries Pvt. Ltd., Jajpur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 18/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: None(Adjournment petition)For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Krushna Prasad Mohanty, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 146/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.146/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Krushna Prasad Mohanty, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Village : Iswarpur, Po: Balikuda, Dist : Jagatsinghpur Pan No. :Bgtpm 2823 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2023 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 23.03.2023, Passed In Din & Oder No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1050056853(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Order Of Ao Without Granting Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That The Ld.Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Delay Of 167 Days In Filing The Appeal. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Caused Due To Lockdown During The Period Of Pandemic Covid-19. Accordingly, Ld. Ar Submitted That The 2 Delay May Be Condoned & The Assessee May Be Allowed One More Opportunity To Furnish All The Evidences For Disposal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. 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 23.03.2023, passed in DIN & Oder No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050056853(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by ld AR that

Sri Praskash Kumar Panda, Bhadrak vs. ITO Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

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

ITA 145/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 18 Shri Prakash Kumar Panda, Shri Prakash Kumar Panda, Vs. Ito, Bhadrak Ito, Bhadrak At: Bankasahi, Bhadrak At: Bankasahi, Bhadrak Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahtpp 0990L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

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 3.3.2023 in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050394906 (1) 23/1050394906 (1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 18. 2. None appeared None appeared ... Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Shri Prakash Kumar Panda, At: Bankasahi, Bhadrak 2. The Respondent: ITO, Bhadrak 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Meena Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(6), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Meena Singhal, Vs Ito, C-3/52,Rajashthali Apartment, Ward-43(6), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Acaps1872L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 20.03.2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed ... reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:- “This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- NFAC dated 20.03.2023 passed u/s 271(1)(c) wherein the penalty of Rs. 61,612/- as levied by the AO in his order dated 03.01.2022 has been

Pooja Dhiman, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2855/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Pooja Dhiman, Vs Ito, B 337, Mig Dda Flat, East Of Ward-59(5), Loni Road, New Delhi-110093. Delhi. Pan-Aompd6593D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2023

Section 44A

appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 22.07.2022. 2. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:- 1. “Since the assessee duly explained the source of complete cash deposit

Rura Ram Birok, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-4, Hisar

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

ITA 2805/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Rura Ram Birok, Vs Ito, House No.1355, Birok Sadan, Ward-4, Sector-16-17, Hisar, Hisar. Haryana-125001. Pan-Albpb3465E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Kuldip Khera, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2023

Section 147

appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 27.09.2022. 2. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:- 1. “That the order passed by the Learned AO and confirmed

ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi vs. Pramaditya, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1861/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs Pramaditya, Cc-14, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E Co No.29/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramaditya, Vs. Acit, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, Cc-14, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Apostle Trading Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Hon’Blesh. N.K. Choudhry, Hon'Bleapostle Trading Consultants Private Vs. Dcit – Circle – 3(1) Limited New Delhi B-304, New Friends Colony New Delhi - 110065 Pan: Aahca2341Q

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1432/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRIANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

Saikrupa Corporation, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(9), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Saikrupa Corporation, I.T.O., C-502, Prasang Residency, Opp Ward 1(3)(9), Vs. Green Avenue, L.P. Savani Road, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-395007. Pan No. Abkfs 6228 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 14/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds ... appeal: “1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi erred in law and in facts, in not appreciating the facts of the case and the evidence being the vouchers and proof of payment and thereby confirming the addition

Mohammedaltaf Abdulkadar Memon, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1) and DCIT, CPC, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 151/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mohammedaltaf Abdulkadar Memon, I.T.O. 4/4478 Taiyabi Street, Ward- 2(2)(1), Vs. Zampa Bazar, Surat & Dcit, Cpc Surat-395003. Bangalore) Pan: Ahzpm 3224 E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 44A

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the ld. CIT(A)] dated 11/01/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds ... appeal:- On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, “1. the ld. CIT(A),NFAC has erred in confirming the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act by DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

M/S Rudra Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 132/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 11/01/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. In ITA No. 131/Srt/2023 ... following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A),NFAC has passed order against the principle of natural justice, equality and fair by not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard despite the fact that assessee

M/S Rudra Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 131/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

Ravi Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 266/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohammed (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Ravi Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 265/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohammed (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Narendra Nayak, 13, Shivpuri Colony, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 212/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sandeep Jain, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4) Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh