“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

Samriddhi Petroproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 580/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Samriddhi Petroproducts Vs. Dy. C.I.T Private Limited Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aarcs2499F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd Afzal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Wholesale & Retail Trade Of Auto Gas. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Losses Of Rs.28,54,332/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 12.09.2016 Determining The Total Income At Rs.2,16,571/-. Subsequently, The Learned Cit Assumed

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

15/12/2022 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi relating to A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the wholesale ... provide documentary evidence in terms of provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A)- NFAC. However, during the faceless appellate proceedings despite issuance of several notices to the assessee, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore

Renu Ratnakar Bhattacharya, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2146/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Meena Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ms. Renu Ratnakar Commissioner of Income Bhattacharya, Tax (Appeals), 112 Fairfield, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Flat No.25, Centre (NFAC), Churchgate Reclm, Delhi Maharashtra- 400 020 PAN: AEWPB8902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Meena Mehta, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R. Date ... assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2016-17 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. Ground

M/S Harmony Media Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7116/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad

Section 143(3)Section 250

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), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2015-16. 2. As there

M/S Harmony Media Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7115/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad

Section 143(3)Section 250

Sridevi Vuyyuru, Hyder vs. ITO Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 575/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)

NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 12/03/2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Sridevi Vuyyuru (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Assessee is an individual

Mangayarkarasi Subramaniam, Erode vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 850/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.850/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Mangayarkarasi Subramaniam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 53/1, Avvaiyar Street, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Erode. 638 011. Delhi. [Pan:Arhpm8094N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 08.09.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Ast/Air Information On Itd Query, The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹.13,90,000/- In Her Saving Bank Account During The Financial Year 2012-13 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income, The Assessing Officer Initiated

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 08.09.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per AST/AIR information on ITD query

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 10.10.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return ... processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, disallowed the delayed remittance of PF contribution. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, the assessee has submitted that the employee’s contribution to PF & ESI has been remitted on or before the due date of furnishing of return

Sgn Distributors India, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 946/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesgn Distributors Vs. Ito – 23(3)(3) 105, Veena Beena Mumbai-400021. Shopping Centre, Opp Bandra Rly Stn, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpr3175L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Pronouncement 29.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R The assessee has filed the appeal against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) – Delhi / CIT(A) u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal: Ground

Norma Lydia Ayyash, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2760/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenorma Lydia Ayyash Vs. Ito – 24(3)(2) 15, Goundowli, Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, East, Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akipa4487B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mansi Ayachit.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.Mansi Ayachit.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195

Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R The assessee has filed the appeal against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) – Delhi / CIT(A) u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal: The learned Commissioner

Mukand Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., New Delhi

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

ITA 2591/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3. From The Perusal Of The Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Before Us, It Is Observed That Assessee Had Not Opted For Vsvs To Settle The Dispute Arising In The Assessment Framed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. Hence, It Can Be Safely Concluded That Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On Erroneous Assumption Of Facts. Hence, We Deem It Fit & Proper To Remand This Appeal To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For De Novo Adjudication In Accordance With Law. Assessee Is At Liberty To Furnish Further Evidences, If Any, In Support Of His Contentions. It Is Needless To Mention That Assessee Be Given Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. Accordingly, This Ground Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. 4. In The Result, The Appeal File By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 143(3)Section 147

This appeal in ITA No. 2591/Mum/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 arises out of the order by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044648928(1) dated 13/08/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income ... Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2 Mukund Limited 2. At the outset, we find that Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee had filed Vivad-se- Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) and settled its dispute for the issues raised before

M/S Manisha Construction Compnay, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle-26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M.Balaganeshmanisha Constuction Vs. Asst.Cit, Circle -26(1), Mumabi Company, Room No.408, Aayakar Bhavan 10, Chartered House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Ground Floor, Dr C.H. Street, Near Dolours Church, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aabfm4710G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

2570/Mum/2022 preferred by the assessee arises out of order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC for short), [hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT(A)] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044966831(1) dated 26.08.2022 against the assessment order passed by the learned Income

Reliance Industrial Investments and Holdings Limited (Successor of Reliance Petro Investment Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2515/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Section 10Section 115JSection 14A

arises out of order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT(A) NFAC] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044299130(1) dated 2 RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT & HOLDINGS LTD 29/07/2022 against the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income

Davalagiri Property Developers Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 690/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri A Ravish Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 143(1)(a)Section 234

Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National e-Assessment Center (NFAC) dated 08/06/2022 with the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The impugned order under Appeal is for the AN 2018-19 and the same is opposed to Law and facts

Borgang Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., CPC, Banglore

ITA 706/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 250

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 11.10.2022. I.T.A. No.: 706/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Borgang Tea Company Private Limited. 2. The assessee has filed ... order forwarded to: 1. Borgang Tea Company Private Limited, 67, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata- 700 013. 2. ITO, CPC, Bangalore. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.By order

Cdk Global (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -1 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Cdk Global (India) P Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aagcr9879K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Adv Tanmayee Rajkumar Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2022 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.3.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Has Entered Into Advance Pricing Agreement (Apa) On 18.8.2021 & The Copy Of The Said Apa Was Furnished Before The Drp Which Is Duly Recorded By The Drp In Para 2.37.1 To 2.37.4 At Page 102 To 104. 3. The Assessee Had Sought To Withdraw The Effective Grounds Of Appeal No 1 To 37 Covered Under Apa . The Drp After Recording It Has Held As Under:

For Appellant: Adv Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

13/12/2022 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.3.2019 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi relating to A.Y.2017-18. 2. In this case, the assessee has entered into advance pricing Agreement (APA) on 18.8.2021 and the copy of the said ... No.401 and Unit 501, Building 12B, Rajeja Mindspace, Cyberabad, Survey No.64, APIIC Software Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500081 2 Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1) 3 Add/Jt/Dy/ACIT, NFAC, Delhi 4 Dy. CIT T.P.O-1 ,Hyderabad 5 Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad 6 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 7 Guard File By Order Page

Shri Pravin C. Bokadia, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRAVIN C. Vs. THE INCOME TAX

Rakesh Kishinchand Milwani, Mumbai vs. Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2580/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M.Balaganeshrakesh Kishinchand Vs. Ward 16 (3) (1) Milwani Ayankar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Flat No. 502, Srushti Road, Church Gate, Mumbai, Bldg No 349 Chs Ltd. Maharashtra 400020 Kalpataru Complex, Mira Road(E), Mumbai Maharashtra 401107 Pan/Gir No. Aaepm6382K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)

assessee arises out of order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2 Rakesh Kishinchand Milwani National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT(A)] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044910989(1) dated 24.08.2022 against the assessment order passed by the Asst. Director of Income

Century Textiles and Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – 6(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2085/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

M.BALAGANESH (A.M.) : 1. This appeal in ITA No. 1976/Mum/2022 preferred by the Revenue arises out of order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT(A)] in Appeal No. ITBA/IFAC/S/250/2022-23/104308543(i) dated 11.06.2022 against the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income ... 25/125) from the claim of deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) granted relief to the assessee by observing as under:- For its own consumption of electricity, the assessee has set up two captive power plants in the name and style of Century Cement Thermal

Asst Comm of Income Tax -6(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1967/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

Sankrt Shailendra Mody, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1780/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M.Balaganeshsanket Shailendra Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3) (2) Mody Mumbai. 8/A, Navjeevan Patel, Compound, 20 Nepean Mumbai, Maharashtra 400007 Sea Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400006

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

arises out of order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT(A) NFAC ] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043032442(1) dated 13.05.2022 2 SANKRT SHAILENDRA MODY against the order passed by the learned Income Tax Officer -19(3)(2), Mumbai ... Sunrise Asian Ltd, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The inter connected issue involved therein is whether the ld. CIT(A) NFAC was justified in confirming the addition @ 2% of transaction amount of long term capital gain as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in the facts