“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

Shreyans Anilkumar Shah, Na vs. Arivs.CIT(A), Ward 5, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 786/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.786/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shreyans Anilkumar Shah The Ito बनाम 504, Rushabh Residency Ward-5 / Maneklal Road Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Nr. Telephone Exchnage Navsari – 396 445 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 16/05/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2010-11. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shreyans Anilkumar Shah Vs. Cit(A) Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitali Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Vaibhav Corporation, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 775/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 775/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vaibhav Corporation The Income Tax Officer बनाम 114/2/1, Vaibhav Corporation Ward-3(2)(1) / Dabholi, Katargam Surat 0 395 001 V/S. Surat – 395 004 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanfv 6268 J (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 21/05/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Vaibhav Corporation Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitali Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 21/05/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... notice u/s 148A(b) and passing the order u/s 148A(d) when it is R actually required to be passed by the Assessment Unit (NFAC). 5. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law on subject, the assessing officer has erred in making

Nikunj Bipinbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO Ward - 3 (2) (1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 759/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 759/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Nikunj Bipinbhai The Ito बनाम/ Patel89/A/1, Nr. Natraj Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Cinema Surat 395 002 Opp. Zenith Mills Nr. Woodan Denzas Vasta Devdi Road Surat – 395 004 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Anfpp 3711 K (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/08/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 203-14. Nikunj Bipinbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 250

Shiv Shakti Oil Mills, Kaithal, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Sh. Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 263Section 68

Captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt. 7.5.2025 (AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16) and dt. 6.6.2025 (AY 2016-17) respectively. 2. Since the identical issues have been raised

Shiv Shakti Oil Mills, Kaithal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Sh. Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 263Section 68

Shiv Shakti Oil Mills, Kaithal, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Sh. Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 263Section 68

Harjinder Singh, Derabassi vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 795/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJ PAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak Malhotra, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 56(2)(x)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Bhagwan Singh, Kinaaur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Rampur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 747/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.747/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Bhagwan Singh Ito Ward-01 बनाम/ Vs. Vpo Brua, Tehsil Sangla Khaneri, Rampur Bhushahar Himachal Pradesh - 172105 Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abups-9864-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parveen Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 09-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-01-2024 Confirming Penalty Of Rs.4,83,694/- As Levied By Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Vide Order Dated 09-03- 2020. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of Approx. 10 Months In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Accompanied By An Affidavit Of The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Also Pleaded For Restoring The Appeal Back To Ld.

For Appellant: Sh. Parveen Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 24-01-2024 confirming penalty of Rs.4,83,694/- as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated

Elite Mining Corporation, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Y. Nagar, Yamunanagar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1465/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1465/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Elite Mining Corporation Ito Ward-1 Khasra No. 17, 23, 24, Gumthala/21, Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Tehsil – Radaur, Yamuna Nagar Haryana 135001 Haryana - 135001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffe-4352-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Kartik Thapar (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 09-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 18-09-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 20-03-2024. Upon Perusal Of Orders Of Lower Authorities, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee Has Failed To Make Any Effective Representation Before Both The Lower Authorities. The Returned

For Appellant: Sh. Kartik Thapar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 144

Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 18-09-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B

Sawastika Printing & Packaging, Kala Mab vs. Assessing Officer, Nahan

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

ITA 1222/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Hon'ble CIT(A)(NFAC) that assessee is having business turnover of Rs 16,77,30,943/-. While upholding the additions of Rs 20,81,000/- the Hon'ble CIT(A) (NFAC) has observed in last para of his order as under:-

For Appellant: Shri Yad Ram Saini, Advocate and Shri Neeraj Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 132Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147

present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1 .That in the facts and circumstance of the case the ld. CIT (A)( NFAC) has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs 20,81,000/- , out of the additions of Rs 82,74,000/- made ... regular books of account maintained by the assessee and duly audited the Chartered Accountant. It was submitted before the Hon’ble CIT(A)(NFAC) that assessee is having business turnover of Rs 16,77,30,943/-. While upholding the additions

Mukesh Kumar HUF, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Disposal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 69A

08/10/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs. 17,00,000/-u/s 69A by estimating agriculture ... expenses and treating the same as Income from undisclosed sources. 2. That learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the action of AO in estimating agriculture expenses of Rs. 17,00,000/-. 3. That learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and facts

Ranvirsinh Amarsinh Dodiya, Ahmedabad vs. Assessing Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 307/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh R Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The grounds of appeal arising ... justice, we set aside the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication following the procedure laid down by the NFAC. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Ld.CIT(A) and comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking

Dharti Foundation, Sabarkantha vs. The Dy.DIT, CPC Present Juris. the ITO, Exemption, Palanpur

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

ITA 2250/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2250/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2022-2023 Dharti Foundation, The Deputy Director Of बनामVs. B/H Kheti Bank, Income Tax, Cpc Chhapariya Char Rasta, Present Jurisdiction, Himatnagar-383001, The Income Tax Officer, Sabarkantha. (Exemption), Palanpur.

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194ASection 194CSection 199(2)

Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) ( ) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, , , 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"यािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internation Taxation) Vadodara, Vadodara vs. Ahmed Mahomed Pandor, Bharuch

ITA 1667/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1667/Ahd/2025 – By Revenue 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1602/Ahd/2025 – By Assessee (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17) 1. The Acit 1. Ahmed Mahomed बनाम (Internation Taxation) Pandor / Vadodara – 390 007 Moti Masjid Falia V/S. Jitali Ankleshwar Bharuch – 393 001 2. Ahmed Mahomed 2. The Acit Circle Pandor Int. Txn, Ankleshwar Vadodara – 390 007 Bharuch – 393 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cwupp 2469 N (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (") यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Are Cross-Appeals One By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Revenue and the other by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 06/06/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax ITA No.1667/Ahd/2025 By Revenue & ITA No.1602/Ahd/2025 By Assessee ACIT (Int.Txn.) vs. Ahmed

Ahmed Mahomed Pandor, Bharuch vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Txn., Vadodara, Baroda

ITA 1602/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Yakubmiya Nabimiya Belim, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Nadiad

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

ITA 1464/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1464/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Yakubmiya Nabimiya Belim, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs. Muslim Vas, Ward-3, At. Raska, Nadiad. Taluka Mehmedabad, Kheda-387130. Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah with Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

instance of the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) ( ) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, , , 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"यािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Motibhai Revabhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 133ASection 271ASection 69Section 69A

/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 20-05- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The order passed by lower authorities is invalid ... required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 11,55,000/- by invoking section 69A of the Act ignoring fact that there is no such cash deposit in bank account of appellant. 3. Both the lower authorities ought to have

Selvarajan Senthil Kumar, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Department, Thanjavur

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3158/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Ramya Murlikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Saujanya Ranjan, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 passed u/s.143

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Oasys Cybermatics Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

reopening. The assessee raised objections to the reopening vide letter dated 31.08.2021 which came to be rejected by :: 3 :: the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) vide order dated 22.12.2021. 5. Aggrieved by the rejection of objections, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras ... No.651 of 2022 along with miscellaneous petitions seeking interim relief. In the meanwhile, the case was transferred by the NFAC to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 02.02.2022. The Assessing Officer proceeded with the reassessment and completed the reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act on 31.03.2022 by making the following disallowances

E2E Supply Chain Solutions Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3101/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

GIRI, JM: These appeals by the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2013-14 both dated 07.10.2025. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds