← 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

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chaapeheda, Chhapiheda vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 55/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 08.10.2024 and penalty order dated 15.09.2021 & 15.02.2022 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chaapeheda vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 54/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 08.10.2024 and penalty order dated 15.09.2021 & 15.02.2022 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds

Indira Bai Jindal, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 134/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: None (Written request)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.134/Ind/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Indira Bai Jindal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 64, Indore Road, Barwaha, NFAC, Madhya Pradesh-451115 Delhi PAN No. APVPJ9518E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None (Written request) Respondent by: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing ... present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the basis

Jaya Juneja, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Indore

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

ITA 813/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA & Shri Aayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148A

appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the learned

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

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

ITA 1823/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ITA Nos.1822-1823/Ahd/2025 For A.Ys 2016-17 & 2018-19 2 ‘CIT(A)’] dated 10.07.2025 & 11.07.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income ... following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC was justified in holding that activities of the assessee are not in the nature of commerce/trace/business without considering the fact that the assessee is involved

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

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

ITA 1822/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ITA Nos.1822-1823/Ahd/2025 For A.Ys 2016-17 & 2018-19 2 ‘CIT(A)’] dated 10.07.2025 & 11.07.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income ... following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC was justified in holding that activities of the assessee are not in the nature of commerce/trace/business without considering the fact that the assessee is involved

Dushyantbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1721/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 14.07.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Patel vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2014-15 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “01. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred both in law and on facts while rejecting the appeal of the appellant without considering facts and documents on records and therefore

Ashokbhai Anbabhai Kachadiya, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1373/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)"), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 13.06.2025 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Learned

Ashok Hirachand Shah, Panvel vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 812/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 147Section 69A

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Denial of Natural ... position to explain all the transactions and substantiate his case by filing all the requisite details/ documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC to his satisfaction. He, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC

Vasant Sudam Bhase, Dehu Gao Pune vs. Assessmeng Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2558/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2558/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Vasant Sudam Bhase, At & Post Dehu Gai Dehu Road, Tal-Haveli, Dist-Pune Pune-412109 Maharashtra Pan-Audpb7683F Appellant Vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Pune Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Kishor B Phadke : Shri Harshit Bari, Addl. Cit (Through Virtual) : 17.12.2025 : 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit Appeal (Nfac), Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 21.02.2025. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1 The Learned Cit (Appeals) Income Tax Department Erred In Law & On Facts That Appellant Failed To Submit Supporting Submission In Support Of Grounds Of Appeal As While Submitting The Appeal Before Cit Submitted All The Information & Documents 2. The Learned Cit (Appeals)) Income Tax Department Erred That Appellant Sub Leasing Rental Property -Open Land To The Companies Namely "Mahindra & Mahindra "Is A Business Income & Not Income From Other Sources. 3. The Learned Cit (Appeals)) Income Tax Department Erred That Appellant That Declaration Of Subletting Income On Presumptive Basis Treating Them As Business Income & View Of Assessing Officer Confirmed In The Order 2

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT Appeal (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2025 which is arising out of Order passed u/s.144 r.w.s

Shrivardhan Biotech Private Limited, Kondigre vs. Income Tax Office, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2191/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 ORDER PER : ASTHA CHANDRA, JM This appeal is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] dated 12/03/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. There is a delay ... grounds of appeal:- 3 ITA.No.2191/PUN/2025 (Shrivardhan Biotech Pvt. Ltd.) “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A),NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „AO') of computing the tax liability

Mr Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Ibrahim Bagwan, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Wrd-1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2160/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2160/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Ibrahim Bagwan, Jalgaon Prop. Of Javed Vegetable Company (Jvc), Barbhai Galli, Bodwad-425310, Dist-Jalgaon Maharashtra Pan-Attpb3077C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT Appeal (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2025 which is arising out of Order passed u/s.147 of the Act dated ... appreciate the binding judicial precedents relied upon vide submission before AO dtd.20.02.2025 and before ld. CIT(A), dtd. 29.03.2025. 4. The Id. CIT(A), NFAC, has not at all adjudicated on the following 3 grounds of appeal having SR. No. 3, 4 & 5. While not adjudicating these 3 grounds

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurnagabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1862/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 1858, 1859 & 1861/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 14/07/2025, 21/06/2025 & 24/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which ... respectively. ITA Nos. 1856, 1862 & 1860/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated, 21/06/2025, 24/06/2025 & 21/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurnagabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1861/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 1858, 1859 & 1861/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 14/07/2025, 21/06/2025 & 24/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which ... respectively. ITA Nos. 1856, 1862 & 1860/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated, 21/06/2025, 24/06/2025 & 21/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurnagabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1860/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 1858, 1859 & 1861/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 14/07/2025, 21/06/2025 & 24/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which ... respectively. ITA Nos. 1856, 1862 & 1860/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated, 21/06/2025, 24/06/2025 & 21/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1859/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 1858, 1859 & 1861/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 14/07/2025, 21/06/2025 & 24/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which ... respectively. ITA Nos. 1856, 1862 & 1860/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated, 21/06/2025, 24/06/2025 & 21/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1858/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 1858, 1859 & 1861/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 14/07/2025, 21/06/2025 & 24/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which ... respectively. ITA Nos. 1856, 1862 & 1860/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated, 21/06/2025, 24/06/2025 & 21/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising

Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs. ITO WD- 1(1), Aurnagabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA

ITA 1856/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 1858, 1859 & 1861/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 14/07/2025, 21/06/2025 & 24/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which ... respectively. ITA Nos. 1856, 1862 & 1860/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated, 21/06/2025, 24/06/2025 & 21/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising

DCIT-Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate Pune vs. Ansec Human Resource Services Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1309/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80J

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The order

Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………….……….….……….……Appellant 15, Dr. U N Brahmachari Street, Kol – 700017.. [Pan: Aabcb1093Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1), Kolkata ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2014-2015 Declaring An Income Of Rs.88,37,270/- & Was Assessed To An Income Of Rs.4,55,31,490/-. The Assessing Officer Passed Assessment Order In The Case Of The Assessee By Making The Following Additions /Disallowances:

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.05.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that