“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

Nalina Dyave Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 685/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda, Vs. The Adit, #129/25, Shree Paada, Cpc, Sanjeev Shetty Layout, Bidadi, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 109. Pan : Aqcpn 0102 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.06.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Making A Disallowance On Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Esi & Pf Of Rs.14,58,631/- Made By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. On The Above Issue, It Is Not Disputed That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Rendered In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs Cit-1 In Civil Appeal 2833/2016 Vide Its Judgment Dated 12 October 2022 Decided The Issue On Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

hearing : 21.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.06.2022 of NFAC, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Revenue authorities

Malavally Taluk Sri Basaveshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1019/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Malavally Taluk Sri Vs. The Ito, Basaveshwara Credit Cooperative Ward – 1 & Tps, Society Ltd., Mandya. Kote Beedi, Malavalli, Mandya – 571 430. Pan : Afepa 6862 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2022 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Credit Co-Operative Society. In The Assessment Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) By An Order Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Earned Interest Income Of Rs.3,20,999/- Being Interest Earned On Deposits With The Co-Operative Bank. The Assessee Claimed The Same As Deduction Under Sections 80P(2)(A)(I)/80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). Deduction Under Sections 80P(2)(A)(I)/80P(2)(D) Was Denied By The Ao By Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs. Totagar’S Co-Operative Society (2017) 83 Taxmann 140 (Karnataka) Wherein It Was Held That Interest Earned On Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order dated 20.06.2022 by the NFAC, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee is a credit co-operative society. In the assessment of the assessee for Assessment Year

Mehul Dilip Mehta (Indiviuals), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 30(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1877/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmehul Dilip Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 30(2) 801, Vraj Nirmal, Rani Room No. 520, 5 Th Floor, Sati Marg, Malad East, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41, Mumbai – 400097 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Maharashtra - 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ajcpm4086D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Manish SethFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 68

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed the NFAC, Delhi, dated 01.06.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs. 18,05,000/- (Rs 17.50,000/- cash deposited in Axis bank Ltd and Rs.55,000/- cash deposited in Karnataka Bank Ltd) as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1877/Mum/2022

Diya International, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1699/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1699/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Diya International बिधम/ National Faceless Appeal 2501, Panchratna, Opera Centre Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval JariwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

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

Bharat Mines and Minerals, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 974/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011 – 12

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A), NFAC dated 22.9.2022 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general in nature, which do not require any adjudication. 3. Ground Nos.3 to 12 reads as follows:- 3. “That the authorities

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order dated 29.04.2021 by the NFAC, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Revenue authorities

Sohanraj Khimraj Kothari, Hubli vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Hubli

In the result, ITA No.686/Bang/2022 is partly allowed

ITA 687/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 68

Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R ITA No.686/Bang/2022 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.06.2022 of NFAC, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. ITA no.687/Bang/2022 is also an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.06.2022 of NFAC, Delhi, relating ... support the purchases and payments vide our letter dated16/11/2018. Their GST numbers may be treated as their identity proof." 6. The NFAC, however, observed that no documentary evidence was submitted by the assessee on ITBA portal to substantiate the claim with regard to filing the confirmation of the creditors

Sohanraj Khimraj Kothari, Hubli vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Hubli

In the result, ITA No.686/Bang/2022 is partly allowed

ITA 686/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri Vinay K. Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 68

Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya, Vs. The Ito, Sriya, 109, 3Rd Main, Sfs 407, 4Th Ward – 3(3)(3), Phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan : Abips 5283 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Anil Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 69A

hearing : 21.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.06.2022 of NFAC, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee in this case, is an individual and is a retired bank employee and earns income

Manish Kumudchandra Metha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2410/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2014-15 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. The learned

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 322/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/s.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner of v. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-tax, NFAC, Delhi IIM Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. PAN : AAFCA8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ankur Pai, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR Date of Pronouncement

Mr. Deepu Bangalore Prasannakumar, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1007/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Koushik K.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144

Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of National e-Assessment Center (NFAC) dated 25/08/2022 with the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044940905(1) dated

Tikona Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 1117/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1117/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tikona Trust बिधम/ Assistant Director Of 3A, 3Rd Floor Corpora, Lbs Marg Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Bhandup West, Cpc, Bangaluru, Mumbai-400078 Karnataka- 560500

For Appellant: Shri .Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 234BSection 41Section 41(1)

ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2022 AY- 2018-19 Tikona Trust, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

Mr. Sanjay Marotrao Modak, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cir 29(3) NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 2041/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Sanjay Marotrao Modak Dy. Cit, Circle 29(3), Nfac F-503, Redwoods, Near Swap, Vasant Mumbai Gardens, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 080

For Appellant: Shri A. P. Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Shri Sanjay Marotrao Modak Dy. CIT, Circle 29(3), NFAC F-503, Redwoods, Near Swap, Vasant Mumbai Gardens, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 080 PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A. P. Sinha : Shri

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 01.12.2021, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 for AY 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Magan Vadhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 19(2) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1215/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magan Vadhaji Prajapati बिधम/ Ito Ward-19(2)(3) Room No.15, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Building, Vs. 39/41, Kamal Niwas 1St & 2Nd Floor, Nana Bhandari Street, Mumbai- Chowk, Bhatia Hospital 400004. Lane, Javji Dadaji Marg, Grant Road West, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anwpp7146B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue By: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.03.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under: - 2. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Facts Whereas Some Suppliers Is Not Belonging To Assessee & Confirm The Addition Made By Ao. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Rs.17,38,432/- Which Was 12.5% Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.”

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. AR)

Section 133Section 133(6)

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.03.2022 for AY. 2011-12. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under: - 2. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Wing B Deputy Commissioner of Exora Business Park Income-tax Sarjapur Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. Marathahali Bangalore Outer Ring Road & Bengaluru 560 103 NFAC, Delhi Karnataka PAN NO : AACCC3169M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing ... appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 28.2.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on following grounds of appeal:- IT(TP)A No.190/Bang/2022 M/s. Radisys India Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 50 Ground No. 1: The learned Assessing

ITO-28(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shri Kulswami Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 985/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Revenue has raised the following grounds: ““On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) NFAC has erred in allowing relief to the assessee to the extent imaged in the grounds enumerated below: (1) Whether on the facts and in the facts ... amount to its total income? (2) Further, placed in the above factual and legal scenario, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). NFAC is, the appellant prays, patently perverse and contrary to law and consequently merits to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

M/S. Nagalambika Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita Manvi, Manvi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 996/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 194ASection 2(19)Section 80P

Date of Pronouncement | 17 | 11 | 2022 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 11.8.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order ... against the decision of higher appellate authority 2. The order of the Hon'ble CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi is against the Act and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of M/s Swabhimani Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd WP No 48414/2018 wherein is ITA No.996/Bang/2022 M/s. Nagalambika Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita

Shibanee and Kamal Architects, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 972/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shibanee & Kamal Architects, The Assistant 78 Imagine, Itpl Main Commissioner Of Road, Income Tax, Epip Zone, Whitefield, Circle – 2(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aaafe3633P Appellant Respondent : Mrs. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 02/08/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Cit(A)") Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer ("Ao") Without Considering The Submissions Filed By The Appellant & Thus, The Order Passed Is In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Has Failed To Participate In The Appeal Proceedings When In Fact, The Appellant Has Filed Its Detailed Replies To The Notices Issued By The Ao/Cit(A).

For Respondent: Mrs. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40A(2)

Date of Pronouncement : 17-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 02/08/2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in fact