“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

Radhey Shyam Agarwal (Deceased) Through Legal Heir, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(3)Section 35ASection 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 25-11-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2018-19 wherein the assessee has raised the following solitary ground of appeal. ‘’ That the ld. CIT(A) has erred seriously

Axia Infoserve LLP, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 3142/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in sustaining the order passed by the National e- Assessment Centre, making addition of Rs.10,19,400/- u/s.56(2)(x)(b) of the Income ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the amendment to section 56(2)(x)(b) by inserting sub clause (B) in section 56(2)(x)(b) is not a substantive amendment but is curative in nature and applies

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Aryavansh Land Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur-1, Raipur

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 107/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 107/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Aryavansh Land Infratech Private Limited Hotel Ishika, Station Road Raipur (C.G.)-492001 Pan : Aalca0004G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 263

Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (for short ‘Pr. 2 CIT’) dated 28.03.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s.144 r.w.s. 263 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) dated

M/S C I Finlease P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The ACIT-1(2), Bhopal

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

ITA 429/IND/2022[2009-101]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2009-101

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. C I Finlease Private Acit-1(2) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. 182, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcc 6164 B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Kumar Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year 2009- 10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.That the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in not holding that the assessment order was bad in law. It was perverse; (2) it was based on irrelevant material ... reasonable; (4) there was mis-application of the provisions of law; (5) the authority misdirected. 2. That the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in not holding that the assessment order passed by the A.O. was without following rule of natural justice and fair play and was therefore a nullity

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short ‘’NFAC’’), Delhi dated 31-12-2022 for the assessment year 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively wherein the assessee has raised the grounds of appeal as under

Swastic Oil Industires, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Sri Chittaranjan Jena, Pipil vs. ITO Ward, Puri

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

ITA 159/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack01 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Chitaranjan Ranjan Jena, Jena, Vs. Ito, Ward, Puri. Ito, Ward, Puri. Pubasasan, K Pubasasan, Kausal Ganga, Pipili, Bhubaneswar. Pipili, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ajpkj 5787 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Mohit Sheth & Laxmi Kanta Acharya, ARsFor 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 4.8.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 231/1044492345(1) 231/1044492345(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 18. 2. S/Shri Mohit Sheth Shri ... Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Chitaranjan Jena, Pubasasan, Kausal Ganga, Pipili, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward, Puri 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. Under

Manoj Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 286/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajvir Singh, Staff Member of A/RFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 148

SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (for short ‘’NFAC’’) Delhi dated 28-09-2021 for the assessment year 2011-12 wherein the following grounds have been raised by the assessee. ‘’1. Under the facts

Seaward Exports Private Limited, Kota vs. DCIT-Circle 2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] dated 29-09-2021 for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That on the facts

Himanshu Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samdhani,CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(16)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27-09-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO-23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ito-23(2)(1) Maharashtra State Board Of Rm No. 111, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Technical Education Tardeo Road, Grant Road, Vs. 49, Kherwadi, Aliyawar Jung Marg, Mumbai-400 007 Govt. Poly Tech Campus, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaajm 0988 M (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 : 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar

Section 10(46)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ASection 2(31)Section 250Section 4

been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue

M R Developers, Virar vs. ACIT, CC-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 79/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 80A(5)Section 80I

been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short

M R Developers, Virar vs. ACIT, CC-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 78/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 80A(5)Section 80I

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 591/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Rajpurohit Plot No. 4, Income Tax, Vikas Bunglow Behind Cpc Bengaluru Bahari Petrol Pump, 560100 Sion, Trombay Road Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vipul Shriyan Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.12.2022 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Commissioner Of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Ld Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding Disallowance Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1001 (The Act) By Cpc, Bengaluru Under Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Employees Contribution Made To The Provided Fund & Other Funds Which Was Paid After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Law But Before The End Of The Financial Year & Due Date Of Filling Return Of Income Is Covered U/S 430 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cita Erred In Noting That The Hearing Notices Were Remained Uncompiled While The Appellant Had Uploaded Request For Adjournment Against Notice Dated

For Appellant: Vipul ShriyanFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 430Section 44A

Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 27.12.2022 for A.Y. 2020-21. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner

M/S Jasani India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 546/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S Jasani India Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, Hw 6010, Tower Centre-Delhi, H,6Th Floor, Bharat Delhi Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0081C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanket Shah Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.02.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Holding That The Entire Processing Was Done Without Following The Method Prescribed U/S 143(1) & That The Adjustments Made Were Beyond The Scope Of That Section. 2. In Asking The Ao To Verify Whether Or Not Rs.9,008 Of Penalty Was Compensatory In Nature - Whereas It Was Already Pleaded That This Had Been Offered To Tax. 3. In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.516,812 Being Contribution To Pf By Merely Stating That The Judgment Of The Supreme Court In Checkmate Securities P Ltd Applied To The Case-Without Appreciating The Submissions That There Was No Delay In The Making Of These Contributions.”

For Appellant: Sanket ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari

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

Jasani india Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Jasani India Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, Hw 6010, Tower Centre-Delhi, H,6th Floor, Bharat Delhi Diamond Bourse, BKC, Bandra ... Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 10.02.2023 for A.Y. 2020-21. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us: “1. In not holding that the entire processing was done without following the method prescribed

Newage Fire Protection Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 487/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Newage Fire Commissioner of Income Protection Engineers Pvt. Tax (Appeals), Ltd., National Faceless Appeal 101, Champaklal Udyog Vs. Centre (NFAC), Bhavan, Delhi Sion, Mumbai – 400 022 PAN: AACCN9026C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R. Date of Hearing ... assessee’) by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 10.01.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019- 20 on the grounds inter-alia that

Newage Fire Protection Engineers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeas National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 486/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Anant Plastic Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-30(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 460/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] confirming the penalty of Rs.1,84,720/- levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section