“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

Nitin Dwivedi, Hardoi vs. CIT(A), Hardoi

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

ITA 362/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nitin Dwivedi V. The Ito – 3(3) Avas Vikas Colony Hardoi Prahladpuri, Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajfpd9057Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.06.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a Contractor. The assessee filed his return ... separately.. 2.4 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee. 2.5 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order

Amar Diwakar, Kanpur Nagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Amar Diwakar V. Dcit J0512, Avas Vikas Circle 4 Keshavpuram, Kalyanpur Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aiypd7324G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Pradeep Seth, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Gathered By The Department From Network Management System (Nms) Portal, The Assessee Had Earned Salary Income Of Rs.17,50,162/- From Fiit Jee Ltd & Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. In Response To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that as per information gathered by the Department from Network Management System (NMS) Portal ... also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which set aside the order of the AO and restored the matter to AO’s file for deciding the same afresh as per provisions

District Co-Opertive Sugar Cane Supply Ltd., Bareilly vs. ITO Range-1-1, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.06.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the Authorities below erred

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 17.05.2024 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s ... verification of facts, the notice issued u/s 148 and the reassessment framed thereafter be quashed. 1 Vikas Jain A.Y. 2015-16 04. Because the NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.21,12,500/- u/s 50C of the Act which addition is contrary

Dharam Chand Agarwal, Kanpur (Uttar Pardesh) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

BECAUSE the Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and in setting aside ... BECAUSE in the impugned order Pr. CIT has failed to show and specify as to how the order passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC could be said to be erroneous in so-far-as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4. BECAUSE the view taken

M/S K.M.Gases Pvt.Ltd.(Now K.M.Vyapar Pvt.Ltd), Kanpur vs. Dy. CIT-VI, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 199/LKW/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S K.M. Gases Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit-Vi (Now Known As K.M. Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.) Kanpur 11, Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorgant Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.09.2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under ... Total Income Rs.67,84,041/- Or Rs.67,84,040/- 2.4 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.5 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising

DCIT Circle 4(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Rashmin Mohanlal Majithia, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1841/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1841/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1) Rashmin Mohanlal Majithia बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan 21A, Nirmoti Sanjivbaug V/S. Vejalpur New Sharda Mandir Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 Paldi Ahmedabad– 380 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jignesh Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 07/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. Dcit Vs. Rashmin Mohanlal Majithia Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 07/07/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 1. 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Kedar Ramakant Kulkarni, Pune vs. Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 2. At the outset of hearing, no one attended the hearing on behalf of the assessee.

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 69

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2020-21dated 08.09.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) read

Income Tax Officer, Murshidabad vs. Chunakhali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Limited, Murshidabad

ITA 803/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 250

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Dipankar Dutta, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 54(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2300/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2300/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Dipankar Dutta,…………………….………...……Appellant 115, Sita Nath Bose Bye Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106, W.B. [Pan:Acypd1204F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-54(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Central Revenue Building, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25.08.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return ... Income Tax Officer, Ward-54(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Central Revenue Building, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - ,Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Rina Ray, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Darjeeling

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

ITA 2262/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 45Section 50CSection 54E

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.08.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019. 1 Rina Ray 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available received from ... Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, AJC Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

M/S. Miravelle Tradecomm Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1946/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1946/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 M/S. Mirabelle Tradecomm Pvt. Limited,.……Appellant 85, Netaji Subhas Road, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcm7418A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 68

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 03.07.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019. 1 M/s. Mirabelle Tradecomm Private Limited 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; 5 M/s. Mirabelle Tradecomm Private Limited (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Century Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 1324/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1324/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited,.……..…Appellant 10B, Sikdar Para Street, Jorasanko, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aabcc0694E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Nikhil Sharme, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.04.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, which filed its return ... Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited, 10B, Sikdar Para Street, Jorasanko, Kolkata-700007 (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Kolkata (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; 6 Century Commotrade Pvt. Limited (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Hindusthan National Glass and Industrieslimited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 338/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 14ASection 250

ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 665/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the Revenue are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 664/KOL/2023: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) Delhi is erred in not considering disallowance made by the AO on account of business expenditure of Rs 6,23,23,653/- whereas the assessee

I.T.O, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Salt Lake

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 664/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the Revenue are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... raising the following grounds of appeal: i. ITA No. 664/KOL/2023: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) Delhi is erred in not considering disallowance made by the AO on account of business expenditure of Rs 6,23,23,653/- whereas the assessee

Centre for E-Governance, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemption, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 13/02/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1073253398(1) for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised as many as 17 Grounds of appeal which are interconnected

Evry India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 837/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Section 234CSection 37Section 43ASection 44A

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 10/02/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1073076533(1) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is general in nature

Sharanappa, Yadagir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Yadgir

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

ITA 1198/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Sahana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the ex-parte order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 27/03/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited., Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 1156/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 57Section 58Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Pronouncement : 31-12-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 04/04/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18 and raised the following grounds: “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred: (i) In not appreciating that