“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

M/S. Bieven Technology Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2248/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 36(1)(iii)

Pronouncement 2 | 15.12.2025 ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 25/09/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069104091(1) for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The only issued raised by the assessee is that

Mr. Muniyappa Ramachandra, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1203/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 69A

Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 03/02/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18 and raised the following grounds: “4. The Appellant is an Income Tax Assessee, voluntarily filed return

ITO 16(1)(5), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Talentube Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Bandra West

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 5066/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5279/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Zaman Ali, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

15/12/2025 ORDER Per Bench: The instant cross appeals of the assessee and revenue were filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter, 'Ld.CIT(A)] order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') for the Assessment Year ... appeal) “This Appeal, by the Assessee, is directed against the Order of the Leamed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20 June 2025, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Appellant has raised the followed grounds of appeal: On facts

Kireet Kedarnath Rai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5222/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 18/07/2024 ... KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST). MUMBAI 400093, Maharashtra, India, do hereby declare on solemn oath and affirmation as follows: 1. That the Appellate order of NFAC, Delhi for AY 2018-19 against assessment order u/s 143(3) was served to us on 18-07-2024. We were required to file

Kohinoor Cargo & Industrial Park Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5076/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2013-14 Kohinoor Cargo & Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Park Private Limited, Income Tax, 1107, Real Tech Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sector-30A, Vashi, M.K. Marg, Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. [Pan: Aadck5163C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 21-06-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Adjournment Application Filed. Further, It Is Noted That There Is A Defect In Filing The Present Appeal, Wherein The Appeal Form No.36 & Grounds Of Appeal Have Not Been Signed & Verified By The Assessee. In This Regard, It Is Noted That The Registry Has Issued A Defect Notice On 02-09-2025 & The Assessee Was Advised To Rectify The Defect Within Ten Days From The Receipt Of The Notice. However, There Was No Compliance To The Notice & The Matter Was Listed For Hearing On 09-10-2025 & There Again, It Is Noted

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 21-06-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment

Talentube Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 5066/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5066/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Zaman Ali, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Foods and Inns Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4926/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Jaya Haresh Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Kalyan

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

ITA 4899/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Patwardhan

Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Ms Smita Thackeray, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3151/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 144Section 250

challenging the impugned order dt. 21.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly. From the records

Hincon Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2961/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainhincon Holdings Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward 15(2)(1) Hincon House, Lbs Marg Mumbai. Vikhroli (W), Mumbai – 400 083 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2592M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45

assessee challenging the impugned order 25.09.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming

M/S. A S C Engineers Private Limied, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, -15(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3567/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri M. Subramanian

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

pronouncement ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the ‘NFAC’) for AY 2014-15, raising following grounds : “Grounds of appeal: 11. The Learned CIT(A), has erred in confirming the validity of reopening proceedings under ... notices issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre notices issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre notices issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) on 14.06.2023, 10.04.2024 and 18.04.2024. The (NFAC) on 14.06.2023, 10.04.2024 and 18.04.2024. The (NFAC) on 14.06.2023, 10.04.2024 and 18.04.2024. The NFAC, therefore, disposed

Sunder Singh, Gohana vs. ITO, Ward - 4, Sonipat

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7020/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7020/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Sunder Singh, S/O Jai Pal, Vpo Khandrai, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana 131301 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Benps-8749-L बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Sonipat, Haryana 131301 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 01.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued The Notice U/S.142(1) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 30.12.2019 Granting Time To The Assessee To Furnish Reply By 10:00 A.M. On 31.12.2019. It Was Contended That Although Very Short Time Was Granted By The Ao, Still The Assessee Attempted To Comply With Directions Of The Ao & Tried To Upload The Submissions On The Official Portal Of The Department. However

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 69A

VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT (A)’) dated 01.09.2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Car-O-Liner India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. PCIT-1 Assessing Officer, New Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6951/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, SR DR

Section 143(3)

assessee in respect of the above captioned appeal. The petition was fixed for hearing. It has been submitted that Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law and on facts by passing impugned order dated 22.09.2025 in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the opportunity of being heard ... PCIT-1 (AO),CIRCLE-4(2), C.R. BUILDING, N. DELHI 2. Ld. AR has requested to restore the file to CIT(A), NFAC, for fresh adjudication after affording due hearing as the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. We have heard

Raju Rana, Panipat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panipat

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4477/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4477/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Raju Rana, Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Shyam Lal, 01, Khadi Colony, Vs. (Appeals), Panipat, Haryana. Ward-1, Panipat, Pan No.Ahtpr1448P Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

BEFORE THE HON’BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF: RAJU RANA ...Appellant 2 Verses Assessing Officer, National E-Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi ...Respondent AFFIDAVIT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL I, Raju Rana, C/o Shyam Lai (PAN No. AHTPR1448P), presently residing at Khadi Colony ... delay deserves to be condoned. We do so accordingly. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 29.12.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It is seen that as many as eight notices sent

Omprakash, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Bulandshahr

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3933/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Om Prakash, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/O- Lallu Singh, Purana Bulandshahr, Chattha Patti Harnam Uttar Pradesh Singh Near Sattar Sunar Siyana, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaspo6327Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Anil Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Agni Chaudhary, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 151

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish

Dap Buildcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 2686/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshdap Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 4, Jagriti Enclave, Circle-7(1), Anand Vihar, So Laxmi New Delhi Nagar, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeca9138L

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

appeal in ITA No.2686/Del/2025 for AY 2017-18, arises out of 1. the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074067596(1) dated 05.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income ... Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). The preliminary issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether 2. the ld NFAC was justified in passing an exparte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. DAP Buildcon

Nagendra Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

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

ITA 2449/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshnagendra Singh, Vs. Assessment Unit, Hapur, Asodiya Income Tax Department, Handloom, Gandhi Nfac Vihar, Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jclps5744H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 272A(1)(d)

SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nagendra Singh, Vs. Assessment Unit, Hapur, Asodiya Income Tax Department, Handloom, Gandhi NFAC Vihar, Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: JCLPS5744H Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/09/2025 Date of pronouncement ... appeal in ITA No.2449/Del/2025 for AY 2018-19, arises out of 1. the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 29.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Brijesh Kumar Goswami, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2414/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbrijesh Kumar Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-305, Majlis Park, Ward-36(2), Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adapg2435L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

appeal in ITA No.2414/Del/2025 for AY 2010-11, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 12.02.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... dated 25.11.2021 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee despite issuance of notice. Hence, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Learned DR and based on materials available on record. 3. The only effective

Tripura Bambu and Cane Development Centre, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemp Ward 2(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2380/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshtripura Bambu & Cane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Development Centre, Exemption, Ward-2(3), Tripura Bhawan, Delhi Chanakyapuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatt7449L

For Appellant: Shri D. C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25

registry. Tripura Bambu and Cane Development Centre, The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 3. “1. That Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts correctly as well as without appreciating ... judicial verdicts 2. That Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in treating gross receipts amounting to Rs. 1,25,27,851 was Income of the Appellant without reducing expenses genuinely incurred