← 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

Exotic Jewels, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 29/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Exotic Jewels, I.T.O., 304, Kohinoor Complex, Chowky Sheri, Ward 2(3)(7), Vs. Sayedpura, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan No. Aabfe 2823 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 23/11/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 189/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh, I.T.O., A-13, Aalekh Co-Operative Society, Near Ward-1(4)(6), Vs. N.K. Petroleum, Zadeshwar, Bharuch. Bharuch-392011. Pan No. Akfpp 3523 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 20/06/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal ... NFAC has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and for want of prosecution. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A), NFAC and may please be directed to afford

Mohani Timbarva Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 433/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mohani Timbarva Seva Sahakari D.C.I.T., Mandali Ltd.,At Post Mohani, Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. Tal-Palsana, Dist- Choryasi, Surat. City- Surat-394305. Pan No. Aasfm 2206 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 26/10/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. Though, the assessee

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

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

ITA 33/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 31/12/2022 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arise from the order of the ACIT, Circle-07, Jaipur dated 20.03.2020 passed under

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2815/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant company submits that the draft assessment order was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFAC'), however the impugned assessment order is passed by the jurisdictional Ld. AO. 2.2 Based on the facts and in circumstances of the case

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2814/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant company submits that the draft assessment order was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFAC'), however the impugned assessment order is passed by the jurisdictional Ld. AO. 2.2 Based on the facts and in circumstances of the case

Peoples Forum Foundation, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 16/CTK/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)

assessee agai This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld nst the order of the ld CIT(A) , , NFAC, NFAC, Delhi, Delhi, dated 9.12.2021 9.12.2021 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021 A/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037650259(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year ... Order forwarded to : 1. People Forum foundation, Plot No.44, Dharma Vihar-751030 2. The Respondent: ITO (Exemption) Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-,Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Sparrow Security Services, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jammu

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

ITA 40/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 36Section 43B

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.40/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961[in brevity

Shri Gurbinder Singh Mahal, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-IV ( 2), Amritsar

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

ITA 22/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 144oSection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 250o

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.22/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, for A.Y. 2014-15.The

Pawan Dhir Eye Institute and Research Centre, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward-1, Bhiwani

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

ITA 644/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(45)Section 5

PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 11.01.2023 arising from the assessment order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section

Amit Makkar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(4), Delhi

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

ITA 616/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27.07.2022 arising from the assessment order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section

Flourtech Engineers Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-1, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.M Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshflourtech Engiiners Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No.-182, Sector-24, Circle-1, Fardiabad, Haryana 121005 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacf4904H

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya (Intern)For Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

This appeal in ITA No.2201/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 arises out of the order by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. ITA/NFAC/S/250/2022-231044425782(1) dated 02.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ID. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed ... assessee has raised several grounds, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A), NFAC was justified in upholding the disallowances made on account of employees contribution of Provident Fund/ ESI in the facts and circumstances of the case. Flourtech Engiiners

Charu Chains & Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2198/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshcharu Chains & Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1169, 1St Floor, Kucha Circle-6(1), Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc3485B

For Appellant: Sh. Aman Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

This appeal in ITA No.2198/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 arises out of the order by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043415999(1) dated 13.06.2022 (hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed ... raised several grounds of appeal before us, we find that the core issue to be decided is as to whether the ld CIT(A), NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn on the ground that the assessee has availed Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS

Bhushan Kumar Uppal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1986/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Manish Uppal (Legal Heir Of Vs. Acit, Bhushan Kumar Uppal), Central Circle-29, N-55, Panchsheel Park, New New Delhi Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaapu3998D

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahir Agarwal, Adv
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 132BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Todarmull Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

Arun Khodpia, AM : The assessee has filed this appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.11.2021 for the assessment year 2015-2016, on the following grounds:- 1. That, on the facts of the case the ACIT erred in levying

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra, Gariyaband vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

ITA 19/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Arun Khodpia, AM : The assessee has filed this appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.12.2021 for the assessment year 2014-2015, on the following grounds:- 1. That the Appellant is functioning in a remote small village at Sakri. The Notices ... fixation by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi did not come to the knowledge of the Appellant, and therefore, proceeding could not be attended. 2. Without prejudice, That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in passing Order ex-parte. He further erred in not considering the explanation as filed

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Manglam Build Developers Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/JPR/2022[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 14A

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

Kalpataru Estate Building Building No.2 Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 455/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order 21-12-2022 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC Delhi and it relates to assessment year 2018-19. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the rejection of deduction claimed

Principle Security and Allied Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 280/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhprinciple Security & Vs. Circle 13(1)(2) Allied Services Private Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Limited, 707 Hubtown Floor, M.K. Road, Viva Shankar Wadi, New Marine Lines Western Express Mumbai – 400 020 Highway, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai – 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp2691A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rahul K. Hakani Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.12.2022 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Intimation Issued By The Id Ao Cpc Bangalore W'S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Erroneous / Without Jurisdiction Since Additions On Issues Where Two Views Are Possible Cannot Be Made. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,59,10,546/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esic Was Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 3. The Appellant Prays That The Adjustment Made In The Intimation Order U/S143(1) Of The Act May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Rahul K. HakaniFor Respondent: V.S. Mahajan
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 29.12.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

DCIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 136/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.136/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-15(3)(2) बिधम/ M/S Strides Pharma Science Room No. 480, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Mumbai- 400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400703 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs8104P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri. I Krishna Kumar, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश/Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 21.11.2022 For Ay 2011-12. 2. At The Outset It Is Noted That This Is A Department Appeal Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Penalty Levied U/S 271 (1) (C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein After ‘The Act’) Based On The Fact That The Quantum Assessment Made By The Ao Have Been Deleted By Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29.04.2022 In Ita No. 1450/Mum/2021. 3. We Have Gone Through The Order Passed By The Tribunal In The Assessee’S Own Case (Quantum Appeal) For Ay 2011-12 Wherein The Tribunal Was Pleased To Quash The Reassessment Order, Wherein Ao Had Made Quantum Addition Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. I Krishna Kumar, (Sr. AR)
Section 271

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM