← 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

Shri Radheyshyam Bisani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 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 14/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds

Vinaylal Shankarlal Prajapati, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 287/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vinaylal Shankarlal Prajapati, I.T.O., Block No. 26, Plot No. 1, Shyam Raw Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. House, Godadara Road, Parvat Gam, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abcpp 1291 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 40

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 30/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds

S. P. C. Infrastructure P Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

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

ITA 121/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”], dated 24.01.2023 for the assessment year 2020-21 wherein the assessee has raised the followings grounds:- “1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred seriously in sustaining

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 1, Sikar

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

ITA 108/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

appeal in ITA No. 107/JPR/2023 before us on the following grounds:- “1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts ... them.” 6. The assessee has raised additional ground which reads as under:- “ That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. So in these circumstances it is Ashok Kumar

Ashok Kumar, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sikar

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

ITA 107/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

appeal in ITA No. 107/JPR/2023 before us on the following grounds:- “1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts ... them.” 6. The assessee has raised additional ground which reads as under:- “ That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. So in these circumstances it is Ashok Kumar

Ghatkopar Sahajivan Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 825/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sghatkopar Sahajivan Nfac Co-Op.Housing Society Mumbai-400020. बनाम/ Ltd., Sulsa House Plot Vs. No.26, Nath Pai Nagar, Gahtkopar East, Mumbai-400077. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacag6938Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "Cpc/Acit 27(1), Mumbai Has Erred While Making Adhoc Disallowance Of Rs.470220/-In Intimation U/S.143(1) & Also In Rectification U/S.154. 2 Ghatkopar Sahajivan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ghatkopar Sahajivan NFAC Co-op.Housing Society Mumbai-400020. बनाम/ Ltd., Sulsa House Plot Vs. No.26, Nath Pai Nagar, Gahtkopar East, Mumbai-400077. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACAG6938Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ... above impugned disallowance is made due to faulty computerized processing of Income tax Return without appreciating the entire facts. 3. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC erred in dismissing appeal without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and submissions. The earlier two notices dated 5/2/21 and 24/6/21 were served during pandemic

Income Tax Office-20(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Crystal Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 823/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sito-20(1)(1), M/S. Crystal 110,1St Floor, Piramal Corporation, 4A/4B, बनाम/ Chamber, Ground Floor, Opp. Vs. Lalbaug,Parel, Annex Building, Old Mumbai-400012. Anjirwadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc7226Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri.Anil Gupta.Dr ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Restricting The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase To 6% Of Total Bogus Purchases Ignoring The Fact That The Sales

For Appellant: Shri.Anil Gupta.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

amended vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) dated 20.08.2018. 6. The appellant prays that the order of the National 6. Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on the above grounds be reversed and that of the AO be restored. 7. 7. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any 8. ground

Mr Arun Manohar Pathak, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Palghar Circle Palghar Income Tax Office, Palghar

ITA 489/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Jignesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

present appeal the Appellant has challenged the 1. order, dated 12.12.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2017-18, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

Chetan Dinesh Sheth, Thane vs. ITO, Ward, Thane

Appeal is allowed

ITA 439/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 25/01/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

Mrs.Meena Bhushan Punamiya, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 406/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: 3. Us Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Preferred By The Appellant Against The Assessment Order, Dated 04/12/2009 Passed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Act Without Examining The Merits Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 144Section 147Section 68

present appeal is directed against the order, dated 13/12/2022, 1. passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee

Easow Thomas, Mumbai vs. CIT Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department NFAC, Kalyan

ITA 336/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 19.12.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2017-18, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

Future Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle-9(3)(2), Now Merged With Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 254/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judiical Member Future Enterprises Vs. Circle 9(3)(2) Limited, Ground Floor, [Now Merged With Circle 1(3)(1)] Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Knowledge House, Off Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Mumbai - 400020 Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari East, Maharashtra- 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp6317L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rashmi VyasFor Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 14

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal is filed by the assesse against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi, dated 23.12.2022 for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing the ld. Representatives has brought to the knowledge of the bench that case

Mr. Narayana Nippanin Rao, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1923/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalenarayana Nippanirao, Vs. Dcit, Cpc 22 Revati Nofra, Near Rc Bangalore Church, Colaba, Karnataka - 560500 Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpr8507L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Narayana Rao.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K. Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Narayana Rao.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Naina K. Kumar.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A) passed U/sec 250 of the Act. The Hon’ble Tribunal in the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue in MA No.368 /Mum/2022 dated ... appeal is posted for hearing before us. 2. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of 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. Commissioner, Appeals

Umberto Ceramics Int P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1661/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

preferred by the Assessee against the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. The appeals were disposed off vide order, dated 29/03/2022. However, on a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue (MA No. 440/Mum/2022

Shri Adarsh Kumar Nagpal, Abohar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (3), Abohar

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 147/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

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 06.05.2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 I.T.A. No.147/Asr/2022 Adarsh Kumar Nagpal v. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds

Jps Plastics Private Limited, Meerut vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 3053/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jps Plastics Private Limited, Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Akj & Associates, Circle-1(1)(1), Chartered Accountants, Meerut. 1St Floor, Deep Complex, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh - 250 001. Pan: Aaacj3433B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.3053/Del/2022 For Ay 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047466981(1) Dated 17.11.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 14.03.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc, Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee Before Us Is That Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Deciding The Appeal Without Condoning The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before Him By 696 Days & Without Adjudicating The Issue On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32

BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal in ITA No.3053/Del/2022 for AY 2017-18 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047466981(1) dated 17.11.2022 against the order of assessment passed

National Law University, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-48(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2288/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2288/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 National Law University Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Sector-14, Dwarka Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi-110078 National Faceless Assessment Pan : Aaalt0918Q Centre, Delhi

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiab)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA

Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1755/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Hearing : 22.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 24.05.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 16.06.2022 pertaining to A.Y 2007-08. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the NFAC erred

Kamal Kishore Sharma, Rewari vs. AO Ward-1, Rewari

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1124/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.03.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1) The Appellant denies himself liable

Gramin Sewa Sahakri Samiti Maryadit, Dharsiwa, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Raipur

ITA 89/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

aforementioned co- operative societies are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 23.01.2023, 13.01.2023 & 18.01.2023, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income ... impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC Delhi further erred in not allowing deduction of income from interest from banking business u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.36,222/- confirming the order