← 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

Income Tax Officer-1 Raebareli, Raebareli vs. Kamla Nehru P G College, Tej Gaon Raebareli

In the result, both appeals are dismissed, for statistical purposes

ITA 532/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Vachaspati, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. P. Sinha, Advocate
Section 10Section 139

section 10 and exceeds maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, therefore the order dated 04.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC is not acceptable and further appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals), NEAC is recommended in this case. 2. The appellant craves right ... alter and/or amend any grounds which may be taken at the time of hearing.” ITA. No.533/LKW/2024 1. Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and has wrongly allowed the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) in respect of income of the appellant, since as per provisions of Section

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer holding that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue It was noted that assessee had furnished valuation reports before NFAC and NFAC had not referred matter to DVO for valuation Further, assessee had acquired leasehold/freehold land setting and building for up mega industrial unit which ... Officer holding that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue It was noted that assessee had furnished valuation reports before NFAC and NFAC had not referred matter to DVO for valuation Further, assessee had acquired leasehold/freehold land setting and building for up mega industrial unit which

Malkit Kaur, Village Allowal, Tehsil Nabha vs. ITO Ward Nabha, Nabha

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

ITA 1096/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं. Ita No. 1096/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Malkit Kaur, The Ito, Village – Allowal, Vs Ward, Tehsil – Nabha. Nabha. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Hsppk0814L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 148

assessee. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. That the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is bad in law and against facts of the case. A.Y. 2015-16 2 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC ... later than the order of the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC is not justified in confirming the penalty order without adhering to the directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT. 4. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) NFAC

Padmini Solanki, DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur, Gujarat vs. Aditya Harshvadan Mangaldas, Tatva Gardan, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 54F

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 23.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-23 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income

Heta Rawal Legal Heir of Late Shri Shailesh Induprasad Rawal, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 281/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 18.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income ... appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in issuing notice u/s.250 in the name of dead person as the assessee was demised

Income Tax Officer, 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shweta Manish Jain, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1594/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 14ASection 69C

Department 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 25.07.2025 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on facts

Kanchanba Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Ac/DCIT. Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1566/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(7)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.1 The order passed u/s 250 on 11.07.2025 passed by NFAC, CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chennai (for short ‘CIT(A) whereby confirming the Intimation u/s. 143(1) passed on 29.01.2025 by CPC Bengaluru, disallowing the claim of exemption u/s11

Tejash Mahendrabhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambletejash Mahendrabhai Patel, Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 1, Ambika Bhuvan, Ward-5, Sathi Society, B/H Hotel Pooja Anand International, Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001 [Pan : Ahepp 4777 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year ... sole grievance of the assessee is as follows:- “That on facts and in law the learned NFAC-CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,03,43,401/- made as unexplained income of the appellant.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Bablu Das, Bardhaman vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Durgapur

ITA 615/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: None

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.03.2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the only issue in assesse’s appeal was in respect

Avishkar Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2302/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Avishkar Nirman Private Ltd, Vs Ito Ward-13(1), Kolkata 7, Tara Chand Dutta Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700073 Pan No. :Aagca 5075 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Is Challenging The Reopening Of The Assessment. It Was Submission That The Original Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Came To Be Completed In The Case Of The Assessee On 28/01/2016. It Was Submission That Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Had Been Issued To The Assessee On 19/03/2020. It Was He Submission That This Was Beyond The Period Of 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year. It Was Submission That The In View Of Provision Of Section 147 Of The Act, The Ao Must Record The Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Truly & Fully All Material Facts As Required For The Assessment.

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 16.09.2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment

Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2204/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Vs Ito Ward-10(2), Kolkata C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aahca 2447 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 22.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Impugned Assessment Order Would Not Survive, Insofar As In The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Against The Said Assessment Order, The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Has Categorically Held That The Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act, Dated 20.06.2022 Which Is Culminated In The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2022, Which Is An Impugned Assessment Order Would Not Survive, Insofar As Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act Was Not In Conformity With The Cbdt Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/Ita-Ii Dated 23-06-2017. It Was The Submission That As Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal

For Respondent: None
Section 12ESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 22.07.2025 for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the impugned assessment order would not survive, insofar ... materials available on record, we find that the assessment has been framed in this case u/s 143(3) vide order dated 23.12.2022 by NFAC, assessing the income of the assessee at ₹8,60,49,114/- as against the returned income of ₹9,35,020/-. We note that in this case

Asha Agarwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2048/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2023-2024
For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.06.2025 for the assessment year 2023-2024. 2. The appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 04 days. Considering the facts and circumstances

Sikha Rani De, Bankura vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 1750/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, passed u/s 250 thereby dismissing the appeal, erred in denying substantive justice on hyper technical ground. 2. For that the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 30/08/2018

DCIT, Circle - 1, Siliguri vs. Bajla Motors Private Limited, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1381/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Dcit, Central-1,Siliguri, Vs Bajla Motors Private Limited, 4Th Mile, Salugara, Near Kalchakra, Siliguri-734001 Pan No. :Aabcb 9514 E & Cross Objection No.73/Kol/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1381/Kol/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Bajla Motors Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central-1,Siliguri, 4Th Mile, Salugara, Near Kalchakra, Siliguri-734001 Pan No. :Aabcb 9514 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: None
Section 145(3)Section 68

Bench : The revenue has filed appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.04.2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019. The assessee has also filed cross objection in revenue’s appeal. 2. At the outset, the revenue has submitted an adjournment petition

M/S. Tega Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1875/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

attention was also drawn to page 445 of the paper book in the assessee’s own case M/s Tega Industries Limited v. AU, NFAC for AYs 2018-19 in ITA No. 539/Kol/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 in which corporate guarantee with the AE has been treated as an international transaction

International Seaport (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.328/Kol/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) International Seaport (Haldia) Vs Acit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Private Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaci 9468 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That Two Issues Are Involved In The Assessee’S Appeal, One Is The Denial Of The Deduction U/S.80Ia Of The Act In Respect Of Miscellaneous Income To An Extra Rs.4,99,372/- & The Second Issue Was Disallowance Of The Disallowance Of The Amortization Of The Leasehold Rent Allegedly By The Ao Claiming The Same To Be Claim Of Depreciation To An Extent Of Rs.42,32,776/-. It Was Submission That In Respect Of The One Number Imported Slewing Ring Roller Bearing From The Original Manufacturer Of The Same I.E. Rothe Erde, Germany, Which Was An Important & Expensive Spare Required For The Operation Of The Stacking &

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.02.2023 for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that two issues are involved in the assessee’s appeal

Mercy Chandira, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CITFor Respondent: 08.12.2025
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 06.08.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2019-20 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... order u/s.148A(d) dated 21.03.2023 have been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp.Ward-22(1), Tambaram [JAO] and not by the NFAC which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. We find that though the order A.Y. 2019-20 under Clause(d) to Section 148A

Capatus Infotech Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6669/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), However, Despite Affording 4 Opportunities, Neither Made Any Compliance Nor Filed Any Submissions Or Documents. Therefore, In The Constrained Circumstances, The Ld. Commissioner Decided The Appeal Filed By The Assessee As Ex-Parte & Allowed Partial Relief To The Amount Of Rs. 11,06,890/- & Affirmed The Rest Of The Disallowances.

Section 147Section 250

preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18/08/2025 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) 2 Capatus Infotech Private Limited u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y.2020-21. 2. Application

Khusbhu Ramchandra Yadav, Mumbai City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Kalyan

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

ITA 6559/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 45

Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16, date of order 19/08/2025. The impugned

Faithfull Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6347/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarafaithfull Developers Vs. Acit – 20(1) 747, Rekha Sadan Piramal Chamber 6, Parsi Colony Road, Dadar Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400014. Mumbai – 400012. Pan/Gir No. Aaaff7720N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 43C

challenging the impugned order dt. 04.09.2025 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 2018-19. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing