← 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

Vinit Vijay Kumar (Erstwhile Director of Temptation Foods Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT (TDS)-3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6348/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravinit Vijay Kumar Vs. Acit (Tds) – 3(1) (Erstwhile Director Of 10Th Floor, Smt. Kg Temptation Foods Ltd.) Mittal Ayurvedi 35, Shreyas, 180 Madam Hospital Bldg, Charni Cama Road, Nariman Point, Road, Mumbai Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabct1689A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

challenging the impugned order dt. 21.08.2025 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 2010-11. 2. At the outset, we noticed that vide impugned order dated 21.08.2025 Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. No.546/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Rakesh Jain Vs Dcit - 26(1) Shop No. 29, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 126-128, Sheikh Menon Bandra, Mumbai St., Trimurti Estate, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Pan – Aaιρj7359P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By | Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By || Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt.28.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

assessee challenging the impugned order dt.28.11.2024 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 2017-18. The following grounds have been raised by assessee. 1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in making

Vipin Rupchand Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4893/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravipin Rupchand Madhani Vs. Dcit, Cc – 5(4) 11, Floor -4, 42, Purab Kautilya Bhavan, Apartment, Bg Kher Marg, Mumbai – 21 Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 036. Pan/Gir No. Aavpm5615N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

challenging the impugned order dt. 28.02.2025 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 2021-22. 2. From the records, we noticed that there is a delay of 96 day in filing

Mr. Pankaj Kisan Gorde, Kalyan vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 4662/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 246ASection 250

challenging the impugned order dt. 18.06.2025 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. 2. From the records, I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Sumitra Surendra Gadodia, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(3)(4), Bandra, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

Section 10(26)Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

Date of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 18/06/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)"] for assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:- “Addition of Rs.88,67,154/- 1. The learned

Hiralal Vastabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward. 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2031/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

challenging the impugned order dt. 24.05.2025 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 2014-15. 2. At the very outset, I noticed that there is delay of 604 days in filing present

Shri Hareshkumar Mafatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5439/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshri Hareshkumar Mafatlal Vs Acit 19(1), Mumbai Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Matru Shah, 18/9, 1St Floor, Hariharwala Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Building, 10/11, S.V.P. Road, 400007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Anqps5958J Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal a/w Shri Om KhandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Shri Anikesh Banerjee, JM: Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brief, ‘the Act’) for Assessment year 2014-15, date of order 27/09/2024 ... Monarch Health Services Limited alognwith certificate issued for 38-40 change of name. 5. Copy of the submissions dated 26.02.2021 filed before the NFAC 41-40 alongwith the following details:- a. Anneuxre 1 – Copy of the Debit Note of Santoshima 50-56 Tradelinks Ltd. With copy of Appellant’s Bank

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5312/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora/For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

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

ACIT, Circle - 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 5310/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora/
Section 115JSection 135Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 43ASection 80G

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

Ramchander, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Panipat

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 682/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraramchander Vs. Commissioner Of Income H. No. 88, Block 2, Tax (Appeals) Pardhana, Israna Panipat Income Tax Officer, Haryana – 132107 Ward-1 Panipat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Asxpr4431R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Arun Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.12.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & P a g e | 2 Ramchander (AY: 2012-13) Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070957431 ... Counsel has stressed for consideration of legal grounds here. However, as the legal grounds raised have not been considered by the NFAC. We consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue on merits as well as law to the files

Savitri Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6658/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Savitri Devi, H. No.425-A, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(2), Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-110017 Vs New Delhi-110003 Pan-Agzpd 4853 H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the ex parte assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer without providing effective opportunity ... hearing to the Appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, has failed to appreciate that no valid notice fixing the case for hearing during the course of assessment proceedings was ever served upon the Appellant. The order passed ex parte is therefore bad in law and liable

Jatin Grover, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 30(5), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5034/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Jatin Grover, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 924, Pace City-Ii, Ward-30(5), Sector-37, Gurgaon, Delhi Haryana Pan: Aixpg2111M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajeev Mogo, Ca Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077287823(1), Dated 20.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Submits That On Account Of Communication Gaps At Various Levels, The Assessee Could Not Appear To Plead & Prove All The Relevant Facts In The Lower Appellate Proceedings & Therefore, Larger Interest Of Justice Would Be Met, In Case, The Matter May Be Restored Back To The Cit(A). The Revenue Vehemently Support The Learned Lower Authorities Action Making Addition(S) Herein On Merits. 3. Be That As It May, The Fact Remains That Possibility Of Some Communication Gaps At Various Levels In Such An Instance Could Not Be Altogether Ruled Out. It Is Therefore Deemed Appropriate In The Larger Interest Of Justice To Restore The Assessee’S Instant Appeal Back To The Cit(A) For His Afresh Appropriate Adjudication, Within Three Effective Opportunities Of Hearing At The Appellant’S Risk & Responsibility, In Consequential Proceedings. Ordered Accordingly. 4. This Assessee’S Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 4Th December, 2025

Section 147

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

Bhushan Kakkar, Delhi vs. Edcit Ward 57(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5033/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Bhushan Kakkar, Vs. Dcit, 421-C 1, Friends Colony Ward-57(1), Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi Delhi Pan: Adupk7362E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Shrivastava, Adv. Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)

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

Shankar Math, New Delhi vs. Ward Exemption 2(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4288/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Negi, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 272A(2)(e)Section 274

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

Binod Kumar Chaudhary, Harihar Ganj Palamu vs. Income Tax Office, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3526/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Binod Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaudhary, Ward-62(2), H. No. 78, Satgaon Harihar Delhi Ganj, Distt.-Palamu, Jharkhand Pan :Anhpc9004G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr)

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

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

Mittal Agro Oil Industries, Rohtak, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rohtak, Haryana

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4160/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292B

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

Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Ward-2(3), Guwahati vs. National Institute of Technology, Dimapur

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: “6.2. As submitted by the appellant in the Grounds of appeal and the statement o
Section 10Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 25.02.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi (hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 1.1 In this case, the brief facts are that the assessee is a Government Body in the status

Pasrinita Mohapatra, Cuttack vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 610/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.610/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Parinita Mohapatra Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack C/O Binoy Mohapatra Peyton Sahi, Wood Burn Tower Flat No- 101, Cuttack 753001 Pan No. : Bxepm 8563 N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi & Shri Biswajyoti Pattnaik, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K.SarangiFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 15/09/2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the notice issued u/s.143

Sri Sanjit Kumar Giri, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 601/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.601/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sri Sanjit Kumar Giri, Hijili, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangriposi, Dist: Mayurbhanj Baripada Pan No. : Bjypg 3736 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Sahu, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.8.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A). Nfac, In Appeal No.Nfac/2012-13/10128163 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Somnath Sahu, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Exparte. It Was The Submission That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Order U/S.143(3)/147 Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Matter Be Restored To The File Of The Ao For Adjudication Afresh As The Details Could Not Be Furnished Before The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Sahu, ADVFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A). NFAC, in Appeal No.NFAC/2012-13/10128163 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Shri Somnath Sahu, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared

District Mineral Foundation, Jharsuguda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR

Bench : These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 31.7.2025 passed by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 202017-18, 2018-19 2019-20 & 2020-2021. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Ashim Kr. Chandraborty