← 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

Shree Mangrol Vanik Dasha Shrimali Gnati Shapur Darwaja, Mangroal-362225 vs. The ITO (Exmption) Ward-2, Rajkot

In the result, the order passed by Ld

ITA 56/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises from order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29-01-2023, in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 56/Rjt/2023

The ACIT Circle- 1 (1), Rajkot vs. M/S. Micro Melt Pvt. Ltd., Shapar (Veraval), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 41/RJT/2023[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Manvar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Sr. DR
Section 154

Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), in Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048126689(1) vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeals

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 28/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Hearing) Enviro Technology Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Plot No. 2413/14, Gidc Estate, Centralized Processing Centre, Ankleshwar – 393002, Gujarat. Banglore. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace4126G Appellant By Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 24/04/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)

against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short ‘NFAC’), Delhi, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, Centralized Processing Centre (‘CPC’), Bangalore, under section 154 of the Income

Lok Bharti Mandal, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 212/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.212/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Hearing) Lok Bharati Mandal, Vs. The Ito, Bharatia Vidhya Sankul, Opp. Terapanthi (Exemption) Ward, Bhavan, City Light Ropad, Surat. Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatl2524Q Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 04/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 24.02.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

Falgun Kantibhai Patel Represented by L/H Minaxi Falgun Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 184/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Falgun Kantibhai Patel I.T.O., (Represented By Legal Heir Minaxi Ward 2(1), Vs. Falgun Patel), Bharuch. E-701, Samrajya Flat, Nr. Fatehgunj Post Office, Vadodara. Pan No. Aebpp 2582 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)

SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the legal heir of assessee/appellant 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 17/02/2023 wherein the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under Section

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat vs. Bhikhabhai Keshubhai Dhameliya, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Bhikhabhai Keshubhai Dhameliya, Surat. Jay Gangeshwar Society, Varachha, Dist – Surat, 395010. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaupd7552N Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca 31/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short ‘NFAC’), Delhi, dated 28.04.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income

Gautam Dhan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 997/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegautam Dhan Co-Op Ito, Ward 34(2)(1), Housing Society Ltd., 815, Kautilya Bhavan बनाम/ 368, Bajaj Road, Bkc,Bandra (E), Vs. Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400051. Mumbai- 400056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaabg0540K (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Manan Mathuria.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

13/06/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts

Hgl Builder and Developer, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 992/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehgl Builder & Ito – 42(1)(2), Developer, Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ 403, F-Wing, Shree Bkc, Bandra (E) Vs. Ganesh Aangan Bldg: Mumbai – 400051. Thakur Village, Near Thakur College, Kandivali (E), Mumbai. 400101. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffh9709L (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

15/06/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld CIT(A) erred

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blue Dart Express Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1370/MUM/2022[1370]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 250

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The three appeals are filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax(CIT(A)) NFAC Delhi, passed u/s. 250 of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR has submitted that

Wonderland Amusement Park Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar

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

ITA 95/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Wonderland Amusement Park Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar

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

ITA 94/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Shri Vijay Kumar, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2 (2), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 36/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.36/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250oSection 69A

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)’], I.T.A. No.36/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ... Centre,Delhi has erred inconfirming the addition of Rs. 6,66,000/- U/S 69A of the Income Tax. Act. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A),NFAC, has failed to appreciatethe fact that theassessee has declared income from Travels Agency being run by him and he has failed to consider that

Late Shri Ashok Kumar Goel Leagial Heir Shri Sahil Goel, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 29/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.29/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 127Section 144Section 144rSection 250o

BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.29/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel Vs. National Faceless Appeal Legal Heir Sh. Sahil Goel Centre (NFAC), Ministry Hoshiarpur. of Finance, Delhi. [PAN:-AGZPG4222D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None. Respondent by Sh. Nakul Aggarwal,Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date ... 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 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. I.T.A. No.29/Asr/2022 2 Assessment

Ramesh Rani Chatwal, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Ghazaibad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ramesh Rani Chatwal, Vs Ito, Kh 144, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ward-2(2)(2), Uttar Pradesh-201002. Ghaziabad. Pan-Abbpc6571G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

Section 144

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 13.06.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Adhoc additions of Rs. 1188000/-. 2. The CIT(A) erred

ACIT, Spl Range-5, New Delhi vs. Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3495/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Special Ragen-5, Jones Lang Lasalle New Delhi Vs Building Operation Pvt. Ltd 1110, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacw4495Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. N

Kakarla Vishnu Srinivasa Rao, Ganapavarm vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049624886(1), dated 10/02/2023 2 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/04/2021 ... Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee contested in his written submissions that the Ld. AO has travelled beyond the limited scrutiny proceedings and converted it into a full scrutiny

Shree Krishna Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049738450(1), dated 14/02/2023 2 arising out of the order passed U/s. 271B of the Income ... 271B of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC. 3. On appeal, the NFAC confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following

Kakatiya Sangham, Tanuku vs. Incpme Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kakatiya Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-348 Ward-1 Bypass Road (Chivatam) Tanuku Tanuku, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaatk7209H] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : 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/250/2022-23/1043166326(1) Dated 25.05.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 23.09.2014 With The Delay Of 183 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Was Passed

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Delay : 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/250/2022-23/1043166326(1) dated 25.05.2022 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, arising out of the order passed ... dated 23.09.2014 with the delay of 183 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the order of the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was passed 2 I.T.A. No.19/Viz/2023, A.Y.2012-13 Kakitiya Sangham, Tanuku on 25.05.2022, as such the appeal against the said order ought to have been filed

Kanaka Mahalakshmi Crackers, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 240/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046394928(1), dated 19/10/2022 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) vide Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143 ... section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee’s representative submitted that the Ld. AO has erred in taking an amount

Kpr Agrochem Limited, Balabhadrapuram vs. DCIT Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in I

ITA 223/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2021 & 81/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Circle-1 D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Kakinada Balabhadrapuram East Godavari [Pan : Aadck0257B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2022 To 223/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S K.P.R.Agrochem Ltd Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.8-256, Tata Nagar Income Tax Balabhadrapuram Circle-1 East Godavari Kakinada [Pan : Aadck0257B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar Shri A.Chakradhar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

I.T.A.No.221-223/Viz/2022, A.Y.2013-14 to 2015-16 11. The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the A.Y.2013-14 to 2015-16. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are common, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common