“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

Vaishnavi Maa Traders, Bhimtal vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Delhi

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

ITA 25/DDN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Vaishnavi Maa Traders Vs Ito Talital Bhimtal, Nainital, Assessment Unit, Uttarakhand Nfac, Delhi Pan-Aabav6386L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Notices On Wrong Email Address & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware About The Notices, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Ao Or Before The Cit(A). He Thus, Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 147Section 250

MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Vaishnavi Maa Traders vs ITO Talital Bhimtal, Nainital, Assessment Unit, Uttarakhand NFAC, Delhi PAN-AABAV6386L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Saurabh Gupta, CA Respondent by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement ... ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 19.11.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed

Sanjay Naithani, Kotdwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit

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

ITA 260/DDN/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2023-24] Sanjay Naithani Vs Ito Kalalghati, Uday Rampur, Kotdwar, Pauri Pauri, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Anwpn8086E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 03.03.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2023- 24. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Taken For Hearing In The Absence Of The Ld.Ar & On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Lower Authorities.

Section 143(3)Section 250

ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 03.03.2025 passed

Dehradun Club Limited, Dehradun vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

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

ITA 251/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dehradun Club Limited Vs Addl.Cit/Dcit/ 15, New Survey Road, Asst.Cit, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Circle-1(1)(1), Pan-Aaacd8246L Dehradun Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. The Claim Of The Assessee Is That Cash Was Deposited In The Bank Account During Demonetization Period In Sbn Of Irn 39,50,000/- & The Immediate Source Of The Same Was Out Of The Receipts From Members. However, Neither Before Ao Nor Before Ld. Cit(A), Assessee Has Filed Necessary Details In Support Of This Contention. Thus, In The Interest Of Justice, One More Opportunity Is Provided To The Assessee & The Matter Is Restored To The File Of Ao With The Direction To Verify The Source Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period. The Assessee Is Directed To File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Claim Made. With These Directions, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 147Section 250

Pronouncement 12.03.2026 ORDER PER BENCH The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 08.09.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 26.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s

Preet Pal Singh, Doiwala vs. I T O Ward1(1)(2), Dehradun

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

ITA 243/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Preet Pal Singh Vs Ito 191,Rishikesh Road, Ward-1(1)(2) Doiwala, Dehradun, Dehradun Uttarakhand Pan-Aqaps0643K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 12.12.2022 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Notices On Wrong Email Address & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware About The Notices, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Ao Or Before The Cit(A). He Thus, Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 144Section 250

ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 21.11.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 12.12.2022 passed u/s 144 r.w.s

Rajkamal Agnihotri, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9

ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 06.11.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10408670 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated

Grand Legacy, Dehradun vs. DCIT Circle 1, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 80Section 80I

ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 19.09.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10101141 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated

Rajmata Kaviteshwari Devi, Satna vs. Incometax Officer, Satna

ITA 107/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 254Section 264

aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 16.04.2024 of FAA. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NFAC) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed under sec. 144 dated 05.12.2018, which is ab initio void ... arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. I.T.A. No.107/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 3 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NFAC)erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him without appreciating

M/S. Construction Engineersw, Barazula vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 712/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Mir, Cost Accountant

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: Both the appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 09.07.2025 and 25.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi dated

M/S. Construction Engineers, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 600/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Mir, Cost Accountant

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

Shri Tariq Ahmad Dar, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 422/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 21.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward, Anantnag dated

Gurdeep Singh, Jammu and Kashmir vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir

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

ITA 294/ASR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 14.06.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Jammu dated

Sh. Zahoor Ahmad Kakroo, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 230/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Zahoor Ahmad Kakroo, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Kanlibagh, Near Masjid Umer, Srinagar. Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Arxpk1190K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shabir Ahmad Mir, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 250

Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 31.01.2023 which has emanated from the order of AO, Income Tax Officer, Ward

Bajaj Educational Society, Ludhiana vs. ITO Exemptions Ward, Jalandhar

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

ITA 225/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 09.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC ... Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That The Ld. C.I.T. (A), NFAC, Delhi has wrongly passed the order u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC

Davinder Singh, Samaoh Punjab vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Mansa, Punjab

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

ITA 214/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 214/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Davinder Singh, Bhal Patti, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Samaon, Matti B.O. Kotra, Mansa. Mansa, Punjab. [Pan:-Abmps3429E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. Appellant By Himanshu Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54BSection 54F

Hearing Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 16.01.2025 which has emanated from the order of AO, Income Tax Officer, Ward

Shri Ghulam Nabi Lone, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Anantnag

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

ITA 624/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 624/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Ghulam Nabi Lone, Vs. Ito, Ward, Dangarpora, Siligam, Pahalgam, Anantnag. Ananthnag, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Ahypl1427H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Written Submission) Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Hearing Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 12.07.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, Income Tax Officer, Ward

Shri Om Parkash Bajaj, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

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

ITA 216/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)

Section 144Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 250

Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 29.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act) which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita No. 306 To 307 & 311/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamita Subhash Road, Sankeshwar Belagavi-591313 Pan:Aaaas5612D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

11/07/2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short ‘NFAC’] which in turn ascended out of order of assessment/penalty passed u/s 143(3)/270A of the Act by the National Faceless e-Asstt. ITAT-Panaji Page ... sought to be evaded was levied u/s 270A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved assessee in each of the cases approached the Ld. NFAC with separate appeals filed u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act. In the first appellate proceedings, the Ld. NFAC in each of these cases issued two notices

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Shri Durdundeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Nyt, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Gokak

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Vsc Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above terms

ITA 38/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Vsc Finance Private Limited C Block, Siyaram Apartment, Mungeli Road, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aabcv4247Q

For Appellant: S/shri G.S. Agrawal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH