← 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

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telagana vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telangana vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1140/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1139/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1138/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-2011
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT(Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Hampi Expressways Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 895/MUM/2022[2017,-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022
For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 199Section 234BSection 234D

facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer be directed to grant further credit for TDS Rs. 66,49,131/-. 5. The learned NFAC erred in confirming the interest under section 234B of Rs. 23,09,726/- as against Rs. 98,434/- payable as per the Return of Income ... learned NFAC erred in confirming the interest under section 234D of Rs. 43,967/- as against Nil leviable. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer be directed to reduce the interest under section 234B and section 234D.” 3. The relevant facts in brief

Ganesh Chhganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2101/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ganesh Chhganlal Jain, Cit (A) Nfac, Plot No. 899 Jassawala Wadi, Delhi. Juhu Tara Road, Juju, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aanpj 1550 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ganesh Chhganlal Jain, CIT (A) NFAC, Plot No. 899 Jassawala Wadi, Delhi. Juhu Tara Road, Juju, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400049. PAN No. AANPJ 1550 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Pramod ... PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority or FFA’) for assessment year 2012-13, raising following ground: Ganesh C. Jain 2 1. Addition

M/S Champion Advance Materials Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1974/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

appeal in ITA No. 1974/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No. NFAC/2013- 14/10118431 dated 30/06/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

M/S. Sangha Mithra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 787/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sangha Mithra The Assistant Rural Financial Commissioner Of Services, Income Tax #612, 1C Main Road, (Exemptions), Domlur Layout, Circle – 1, Bangalore – 560 071. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecs0038H Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order U/S. 250 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 07/07/2022 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax Nfac, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Is So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar
Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250

Delhi dated 07/07/2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight

M/S. Mysore Mercantile Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 551/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohammed Mujassim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 140A(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [NFAC] dated 09.05.22 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee \ raised following grounds of appeal: “NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-PAYMENT Page

Umamaheswari, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.527/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs.Umamaheswari, V. The Income Tax Officer, 12A, Perumal Konar Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), Vpc Nagar, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Abrpu 4791 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Erode Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Erode AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 69Section 69A

addition u/s.69 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but could not succeeded. The Ld.CIT(A), NFAC for the reasons stated in their appellate order, confirmed the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee ... appeal before me. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming additions made towards cash deposits of Rs.7,67,500/- by treating it as unexplained money u/s.69 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee can transact in Specified Bank Notes

M/S Green Leaves Estates and Hotels, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward -13(4), Chennai

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

ITA 522/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.522/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Green Leaves Estates- V. The Income Tax Officer & Hotels, Non-Corporate Ward-13(4), Flat No.29, Second Floor, Chennai. ‘Stonedge Towers’, 17, 1St Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

mentioned Assessment Year vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/2022- 23/1043064561(l) is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.7,01,884/- being 5% of net project expenses of Rs.1,40,37,687/- resulting in confirmation ... said disallowance in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. M/s.Green Leaves Estates & Hotels :: 2 :: 3. The NFAC erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.1,25,300/- being the expenses incurred as unexplained resulting in confirmation of the addition made as a consequence

Porkodi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 378/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.378/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt.Porkodi, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.2B/8, Dabc Mithilam Apartments, Non-Corporate Ward-8(3), Sir Ram Nagar, Main Road, Chennai. Nolambur, Chennai. [Pan: Bkepp 7297 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.D.Anand, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The Order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, vide Order reference ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1041151277(1), dated 21.03.2022, is against the facts of the case, weight of evidence on record and principles of natural justice. Grounds ... Addition of Unexplained money U/S.69A The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals), NFAC, has failed to appreciate the fact of the case, in confirming the addition of cash deposits to the tune of Jj*s.17 Lakhs (out of Rs.18. Smt.Porkodi :: 2 :: Lakhs total addition made by the learned AO) as unexplained money

M/S Gas Jeans Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 1975/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Gas Jeans Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit Circle-9(3)(2), A-Wing, 410,4Th Floor, Express Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Zone, Western Express Highway, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Diagonally, Opp. Oberoi Mall, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon-East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aadcg 6602 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanyam Suresh Joshi, DR

PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘First Appellate Authority or FAA’) for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds : M/s Gas Jeans

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax, CPC Bagalore Bagalore, Bagalore

In the result, the appeals of the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1293/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 1292 & 1293/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Greatship (India) Vs. Asst. Director Of Income- Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Mistry Llp, Esplanade Karnataka - 560500 House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Akram Khan &For Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 143(1)Section 199

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by NFAC, Delhi, which in turn arises from the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act for A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Since the appeals

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax, CPC Bagalore, Bagalore

In the result, the appeals of the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1292/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 1292 & 1293/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Greatship (India) Vs. Asst. Director Of Income- Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Mistry Llp, Esplanade Karnataka - 560500 House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Akram Khan &For Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 143(1)Section 199

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by NFAC, Delhi, which in turn arises from the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act for A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Since the appeals

Siemens Financial Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 849/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesiemens Financial Vs. National Faceless Services Pvt Ltd Assessment Plot No. 2, Sector No.2, Centre(Nfac) Kharghar Node, Navi Delhi. Mumbai – 410210. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapcs0403H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Jeet Kamdar.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Suresh Periasamy.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed The By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 201And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Jeet Kamdar.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Periasamy.DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201a

MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Siemens Financial Vs. National faceless Services Pvt Ltd Assessment Plot No. 2, Sector No.2, Centre(NFAC) Kharghar Node, Navi Delhi. Mumbai – 410210. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAPCS0403H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Jeet Kamdar.AR Respondent by : Shri. Suresh ... PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: This appeal is filed the by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s 201and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Kumar Spinning Mills Privae Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, TDS, CPC, Gaziabad

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 697/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 154(1)Section 154(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

Assessee are directed against separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, all dated 12.07.2022 for the relevant Assessment Years 2014 – 2015 and 2015 – 2016. Since the facts in all :: 2 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022 these

Kumar Spinning Mills Privae Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, TDS, CPC, Gaziabad

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 696/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 154(1)Section 154(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

Assessee are directed against separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, all dated 12.07.2022 for the relevant Assessment Years 2014 – 2015 and 2015 – 2016. Since the facts in all :: 2 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022 these

Kumar Spinning Mills Privae Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, TDS, CPC, Gaziabad

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 695/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 154(1)Section 154(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

Assessee are directed against separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, all dated 12.07.2022 for the relevant Assessment Years 2014 – 2015 and 2015 – 2016. Since the facts in all :: 2 :: I.T.A. Nos.692 to 697CHNY/2022 these