← 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

Malay Bishoi, Dabugaon vs. ITO, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri N.Anand Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 194C

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.05.2025 for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is an employee of Shri Surendra Kumar

Niladree Build-Tech Private Limited, Puri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 303/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.03.2025 for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there are three issues in the appeal

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

impose penalty. 71. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC & Anr in W.P.(C) 7092/2022 dated 31.05.2022 has observed as under:- "8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

impose penalty. 71. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC & Anr in W.P.(C) 7092/2022 dated 31.05.2022 has observed as under:- "8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb

Trijal Enterprise Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.261, 262 & 263/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Trijal Enterprise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-2, At-Hall No.6, Block-2, Bmc Bhubaneswar Bhawani Mall, Saheed Nagar, Khordha-751007, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aafct 9662 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, All Dated 25.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Confirming The Penalty Levy Under 270A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That For The Impugned Assessment Years The Assessee Has Filed Original Return For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Disclosing A Loss Of Rs.8,30,930/-, For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Income Of Rs.20,46,140/- & For Assessment Year 2019-20 An Income Of Rs.17,27,850/-. There Was A Search On The Premises Of The Assessee On 03/04/2019. In Response To Notice Issued U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Disclosing A Loss

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

impose penalty. 71. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC & Anr in W.P.(C) 7092/2022 dated 31.05.2022 has observed as under:- "8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb

Shree Prasad Jewellers, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.177/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Shree Prasad Jewellers, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Sai Bihar, Sundargarh-770001 Pan No. :Abgfs 9081 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 10 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Of Application Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 10 Days Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal. 3. The Ld. Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted A Chart Stating Therein The Surviving Period Of Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Act & Submitted That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.09.2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. At the outset, we found that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 10 days

M S Infraengineers (P) Limited, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circler-2(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 438/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.438/Ctk/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR
Section 145(3)

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.8.2024 passed by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A),Cuttack/10784/2016-17 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh ... Engineers Pvt Ltd., Near Balashram, Nuapada, Cuttack 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent- ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack 3. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT 5. "वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file

Menaka Jayasaval, Samastipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 169/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Hearing] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 169/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Menaka Jayasaval (Appellant) Vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi (Respondent) PAN: AUGPJ8953M Appearances: Assessee represented by Department represented by Date of concluding the hearing Date of pronouncing the order : None : Shri Ashwani ... ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ld. 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

Shankar, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 159/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ld. 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 ... Mandir, Nala Road,Kadamkuan, Patna-800003, Bihar 2. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Manju Devi Begani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Surat

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

ITA 789/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

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 on 23.05.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14. ### 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Nazerabibi Nadeem Shama, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2 (3) (6), Surat

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

ITA 760/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.760/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazerabibi Nadeem Shama, Vs. Ito, 401, 4Th Floor, Dhoom Palace, Nr. I. P. Ward – 2(3)(6), Mission School, Muglisara, Surat – Surat 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Dbpps2760J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/12/2025

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessment year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.71 ... Income Tax Act. 2. PRAYER: 2.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed the Ld. CIT(A) – NFAC may be kindly deleted. 2.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted. ITA No.760/SRT/2025/AY.2019-20 Nazerabibi Nadeem Shama

Avkar Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.715/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Avkar Urban Co-Op. Credit Soc. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Circle – 3(3), 113-114, Sunrise Chambers, Surat Varachha Road, Mini Bazar, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaa8341B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Aakash Bakashwala, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 18.06.2025 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That

Ashvinbhai Keshvlala Patel, Ahmedabad vs. I.T.O. Ward 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 782/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

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 12.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Vejalpur vs. Jasmine Jayantibhai Sanghavi, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1779/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1779/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) बनाम/ Income-Tax Officer Jasmine Jayantibhai Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad Sanghavi Vs. 7-F, Swetal Flat, Khanpur Bai Centre, Khanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aqcps1433R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Talati, AR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are as under: 1. "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

Pravinbhai Babubhai Prajapati, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1731/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

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 on 28.11.2024 for A.Y. 2017- 18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That on facts ... learned NFAC has grievously erred in not granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, and in deciding the appeal vide ex-parte order. 2. That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,05,402/- made

ACIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Vyakti Vikas Kendra India, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

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 25.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income ... following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition made by AO amounting to Rs.18,00,38,753/- on account of capital expenditure holding that the assessee to be carrying

Ranna Shashank Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1400/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

ORDER PER 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 31.10.2023 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income

Ganeshbhai Gandabhai Rabari (As Legal Heir of Deceased Gandabhai Prabhatbhai Rabari), Kalol, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mehsana

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

ITA 1329/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)

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 25.04.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 in the proceeding under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income ... assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - “1. That the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and facts by not quashing the notice issued under section 148 of the Act as the order passed

Kirankumar Amrutlal Shah, Banaskantha vs. The Incometax Officer, Ward-4, Palanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1208/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 69A

appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under: “(1) That on facts and in law the learned NFAC ... rebut the same. ITA No. 1208/Ahd/2024 (Kirankumar Amrutlal Shah vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 2 – (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC-CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming the tax levied u/s 115BBE of the Act in respect of the said addition. (3) That on facts

Vithoba Dada Shirsath, Nashik vs. ITO Ward2(1) Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 2352/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh PardeshiFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.08.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY) 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned ... passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC challenging the above addition made by the Ld. AO. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, there was non-compliance of notice(s) of hearing