← 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

Davinder, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for 8statistical purposes

ITA 2794/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4

Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 10.03.2023 ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to the Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since the issues are common & connected and the appeals were heard together, these are being disposed

Davinder, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for 8statistical purposes

ITA 2793/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4

Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 10.03.2023 ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to the Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since the issues are common & connected and the appeals were heard together, these are being disposed

Vivek Garg, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2727/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 69

Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 10.03.2023 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 26.03.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That the Learned

Ishant Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2694/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Manoj Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)

Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 10.03.2023 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 23.09.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That ... facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has grossly erred is confirming a total addition of Rs.23,73,348/- u/s 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has grossly

Gurmukh Das Gangwani, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 246/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 246/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gurmukh Das Gangwani House No.199, Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan : Ainpg1689A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.10.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

Shri Prakash Kakaldas Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(4), Surat

In the result, this part of ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 217/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Prakash Kakaldas Shah, The Ito, Ward-1(3)(4), 702, Sterling Apartment, Nr. Priya Surat. Vs. Hotel, Athwagate, Surat – 395003. Pan : Abips4373F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short’ NFAC’)/Ld. CIT(A), dated 02/06/2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, which in turn arise against the additions made by Assessing Officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward ... grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on subject the learned CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi erred in dismissed the appeal without properly considering the facts of the case. 2. As your appellant already shown rent income & brokerage income

Vijay Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-5, Hisar

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

ITA 2724/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144

Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 09.03.2023 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 31.08.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That the above

Aleenjeet, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2691/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 44A

Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 09.03.2023 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 07.09.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. Assessment framed

Abhay Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 72(3), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 69A

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 26.11.2021, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the Learned Commissioner of Income

Smt. Amina Anvar, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

opportunity to your appellant. The appellant sought an adjournment on 25-06-2022 upto 12-07 2022,which was not considered by the CIT NFAC, and dismissed the appeal on 30-06- 2022.1n view of this, . the order of the CIT NFAC is invalid. 10. Any other grounds that ... Padmavathy S.) Judicial Member Bengaluru, Dated: 09th March, 2023 7 Smt. Amina Anvar Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The NFAC, Delhi 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order

Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Income Tax Officer, Ward B/1 Bombay Market, No.1(2)(2), Aayakar Vs Umarwada, Surat-395003 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan No: Aobps 3537 D Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 21.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 09.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(2) Surat, Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.02.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.69,210/- U/S 271B Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Jigneshbhai R. Savalia 2. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Delete Any Ground(S) Either Before Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

Section 44AB. The assessee failed to comply the said Section 44AB and accordingly liable for penalty under section 271B of the Act. The NFAC/ Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by referring the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kwality

Chalumuru Venkata Rao, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.21/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Chalumuru Venkata Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer #1, Opp. Rtc Complex Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Adxpc8298G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08 .03.2023

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047736906(1) dated 30.11.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case mentioned in assessment order

T Srinivasa Rao&Co, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 184/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide orders dated 03.08.2022 for the A.Y.2018-19 (I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 and 179/Viz/2022), orders dated 28.07.2022, 14.09.2022 for the Assessment Years 2019-20 (I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 & 184/Viz/2022). Since

Sri Ranga Motors, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 179/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide orders dated 03.08.2022 for the A.Y.2018-19 (I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 and 179/Viz/2022), orders dated 28.07.2022, 14.09.2022 for the Assessment Years 2019-20 (I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 & 184/Viz/2022). Since

Eastern Warehouse Corporation, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 175/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide orders dated 03.08.2022 for the A.Y.2018-19 (I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 and 179/Viz/2022), orders dated 28.07.2022, 14.09.2022 for the Assessment Years 2019-20 (I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 & 184/Viz/2022). Since

Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 174/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide orders dated 03.08.2022 for the A.Y.2018-19 (I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 and 179/Viz/2022), orders dated 28.07.2022, 14.09.2022 for the Assessment Years 2019-20 (I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 & 184/Viz/2022). Since

The Raghunayaka Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Chinnayyagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 267/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Unagatla Large Sized Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal Ward-2 [Pan : Aaaau3979M] Tanuku आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Raghunayaka Large Sized Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.10-122, Near Ramalayam Tadepalligudem Chinnayyagudem West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaeat9533A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 08.10.2021, 24.11.2021 and 01.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, these appeals are clubbed, heard

Unagatla Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Chagallu Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tanuku

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 255/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Unagatla Large Sized Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal Ward-2 [Pan : Aaaau3979M] Tanuku आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Raghunayaka Large Sized Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.10-122, Near Ramalayam Tadepalligudem Chinnayyagudem West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaeat9533A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 08.10.2021, 24.11.2021 and 01.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, these appeals are clubbed, heard

No 1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co Op Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Guntur

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 219/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Unagatla Large Sized Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal Ward-2 [Pan : Aaaau3979M] Tanuku आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Raghunayaka Large Sized Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.10-122, Near Ramalayam Tadepalligudem Chinnayyagudem West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaeat9533A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 08.10.2021, 24.11.2021 and 01.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, these appeals are clubbed, heard

The Kundayam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 4, Kollam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Santosh P. Abraham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15(1)(A)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.09.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal – “A. The orders of the authorities below to the extent it is objected