← 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 Gautam Shambhubhai Vaghasiya, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward -1 (1) (2), Rajkot

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

ITA 270/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ld. Cit(A)-1, Rajkot On 01.02.2018 With A Detailed Paper Book. Thus The Ld. A.R. Pleaded To Set Aside The Matter Back To The File Of Ld. Nfac For Adjudication On The Appeal On Merits.

Section 143(3)

against the Appellate order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), arising out of the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating ... 270/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Gautambhai Shamhubhai Vaghasiya vs. ITO 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the written submission filed before Ld. CIT(A)-1, Rajkot on 01.02.2018 with a detailed Paper Book. Thus

Shri Navavaghniya Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited, Amreli vs. The DCIT/ACIT (CPC), Bangalore, Banagalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

against the Appellate order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), arising out of the Intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating ... dismiss the assessee appeal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is apparent from the Ld. NFAC order when the assessee has clearly pointed out the amendment in Section 143(1) made by Finance Act, 2021 which is not applicable

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 134/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

separate Appellate orders dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), whereby confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 133/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

separate Appellate orders dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), whereby confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 132/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

separate Appellate orders dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), whereby confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 131/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

separate Appellate orders dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), whereby confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating

Shreenathji Devlopers, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 130/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(b)

separate Appellate orders dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), whereby confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating

Krushnalal Bhagwandas Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 291/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.291/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Krushnalal Bhagwandas Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(7), 3/36, Amba Krishna Bhavan, Ambaji Surat. Chowk, Rander, Surat – 395005, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adppp8611A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bipin Jariwala, Ar Revenue By: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘ Nfac’), In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045270881(1), Dated 07.09.2022, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 13.12.2018. 2. At The Outset Itself, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. The Ld. Counsel Submitted That Assessee Did Not Receive Notice From Cit(A) During Appellate Proceedings, Therefore Assessee Could Not Attend Proceeding Before The Ld. Cit(A), Hence, An Another Opportunity To Contest The Appeal Before The First Appellate Authority May Be Granted To The Assessee. Assessment Year. 2011-12 Krushnalal Bhagwandas Patel 3. On The Other Hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr) For The Revenue, Did Not Have Any Objection If The Matter Is Remitted Back To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Bipin Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘ NFAC’), in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045270881(1), dated 07.09.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Shri Shamjibhai M. Sheladiya, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.-3(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 234/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2022 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Shamjibhai M Sheladiya Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Chandanbaug Society, Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Opp. Dharam Nagar, A.K. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Road, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Afxps 3164 B 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 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 03.03.2023 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 27.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 06.12.2018. 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 Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.15,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act,1961. Sh.Shamjibhai M Sheladiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Invoking Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act & In Thereby Taxing Entire Cash Credit Of Rs.15,00,000/- At 30 Percentage.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 80C

raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.15,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit ... Sh.Shamjibhai M Sheladiya 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and in thereby taxing entire cash credit

Jeevan Kalyana Sadhan Kendra, Nuapada vs. ITO (Exemption), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 73/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Jeevan Jeevan Kalyana Kalyana Sadhana Sadhana Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Kendra, Nuapada. Kendra, Nuapada. Sambalpur Sambalpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaaj 9932 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Ar Natabar Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Delhi, Dated10.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1040548106(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Natabar Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Natabar Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Natabar Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 12A

assessee This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld against the order of the ld CIT(A), , NFAC, NFAC, Delhi, Delhi, dated10.3.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1040548106(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Shri Natabar Panda ... Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Jeevan Kalyana Sadhana Kendra, Nuapada 2. The Respondent: ITO (Exemption), Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Meeta Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 1793/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2019-20 Meeta Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O Jain & Malhotra, Ward-68(8), 117, Inderprakash Building, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Axops3464K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Invoking Section 50C Of The I.T Act Without Following The Proper Procedure Laid Down In The Act. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Confirming The Addition On Account Of Deemed Capital Gain Amounting To Rs.9,50,000/-. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal,' Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Enhancing The Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The Income Tax Act. The Action Of The Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed. The Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Submit, Alter Or Withdraw Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or On The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 50C

Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances

Rakesh Rathi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(5), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1790/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 Rakesh Rathi, Ito Ward 58(5), New C/O M K Bhatt & Co., Delhi Chartered Accountants, Vs. G-7(Basement), Preet Vihar, New Delhi 110092 Pan Agrpr8529C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri M.K Bhatt, Fca Shri Malav Goswami, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri M.K Bhatt, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.07.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. Rakesh Rathi Page 2 of 8 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read

Mamta Gupta, Faridabad vs. ITO, OSD-1, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1692/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Mamta Gupta Ito Osd-1 Faridabad 100, Sector-19, Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Vs. Pan Agypg3143N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 68

Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.05.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- Smt. Mamta Gupta Page

United Bank of India (Now Merged With Pnb), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata

ITA 1903/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1903/Del/2021, A.Y. 2008-09

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 254

assessee against order dated 15.10.2021 in CIT(A), Kolkata-23/10315/2018-19 for the assessment year 2008-09 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or in short ‘Ld. F.A.A.’) in regard to the appeal before it arising out of assessment ... factual explanation of the delay while Ld. DR supported the findings of Ld. CIT(A). 4. Primarily the ground of appeal pressed is that NFAC was not justified in rejecting the condonation of delay. 5. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record it can be observed that the assessee

Shri Satbir Singh Bhullar, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 5 (4), Amritsar

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

ITA 258/ASR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 68

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed 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] order dated 05.08.2021 for A.Y. 2008-09.The

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

your kind perusal. Aggrieved by the additions made while passing the order u/s 147/143(3) the assessee had preferred an appeal before CIT(A) NFAC, New Delhi. The assessee as a matter of fact had paid the demand amounting to Rs.207696/- as had been created by the AO. However

Aman Goyal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Balram Swami, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263wSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 7,81,660/-, without considering the fact that income assessed ... Shri Aman Goyal, Jaipur. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, has erred in confirming the penalty on the basis of “no appeal was filed by the appellant against the assessment order from which

M.K Hotels & Resorts Limited, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissione of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

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

ITA 57/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 245Section 250oSection 80I

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed 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] order dated I.T.A. No.57/Asr/2021 2 Assessment

Kalpataru Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Rajkot

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

ITA 266/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 15.09.2022 arising in the matter of penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here- in-after

Dharmendra Prasad More, Balasore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Balasore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 215/CTK/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2011-12 Dharmendra Prasad More, Dharmendra Prasad More, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nil, Sahadev Khunta, Po: Nil, Sahadev Khunta, Po: Balasore Sahadev Sahadev Khunta, Khunta, Dist: Dist: Balasore Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agfpm 2413 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Delhi, Dated 5.9.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045172764(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), , NFAC, NFAC, Delhi, Delhi, dated 5.9.2022 in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045172764(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2011- 12. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra ... Dharmendra Prasad More, Nil, Sahadev Khunta, PO: Sahadev Khunta, Dist: Balasore 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Balasore 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack