← 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

The State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Kollam vs. ACIT, Kollam Circle, Kollam

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

ITA 819/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 The State Farming Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. .......... Appellant P.B. No. 13, Vettithitta P.O., Punalur 689696 [Pan: Aaact8150F] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kollam ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Iype John, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 03.06.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Government Of Kerala Undertaking Engaged In Production Of Latex & Manufacturing Cenex Out Of It. Apart From Latex Production From Rubber Plantations, The Company Is Engaged In Production Of Cashes, Coconut, Pepper, Plantain, Etc. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 01.01.2018 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 1,02,61,730/-. Against

For Appellant: Shri Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 244A

Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 03.06.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Government of Kerala undertaking engaged in production

George Thomas, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 808/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 George Thomas .......... Appellant Kurissummoottil Mukkalli, Parathodu Edakkunnam, Kottayam 686512 [Pan: Afypt6697M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Prasanth Srinivas Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Agricultural Income. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 05.01.2021 Declaring Nil Income Showing Agricultural Income Of Rs. 26,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.09.2022 Passed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of 2 George Thomas Rs. 32,00,000/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Entire Receipts Shown From Agriculture Of Rs. 32,00,000/- For The Failure Of The Appellant To Discharge The Onus Of Proving He Agricultural Income.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanth SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144

present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I find that the NFAC has dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay of 774 days. It is submitted before ... George Thomas considered opinion that in the interest of justice the matter required remand to the file of the NFAC for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Gtn Textiles Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1) Kochi, Ernakulam

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

ITA 807/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2006-07 Gtn Textiles Limited .......... Appellant 61/464, 6Th Flor, Palal Towers, M.G. Road Ravipuram, Ernakulam 682016 [Pan: Aaccg3925B] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Kacks Joby, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture & Sale Of Cotton Yarn. The Return Of Income For Ay 2006-07 Was Filed On 27.11.2006 Declaring Nil Income After Adjusting Unabsorbed Depreciation. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Aluva (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 29.12.2008 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Kacks Joby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I found that the NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that Form 35 is defective as the assessment year was mentioned as 2005-06 as against the correct ... considered opinion, the defect is a curable defect and NFAC ought to have given opportunity to cure the defect by directing the appellant to revise Form 35. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the NFAC with a direction that the appeal should be disposed on merits after

Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit

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

ITA 777/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kollamkulam Tomy Mathew .......... Appellant Kollamkulam, Kanjirappally 682020 [Pan: Akypm6369A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1, Kottayam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)Section 3

Mathew 249(4)(b) has no application to the facts of the case. Therefore, I remand the matter back to the file of the NFAC to decide the issues raised by the appellant after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. All the contentions raised by appellant are kept ... open before the NFAC. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2025. (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st November, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent

Jojo, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 769/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jojo .......... Appellant Kattalapeedika House, Mattathur, Thrissur [Pan: Bycpj5296A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vibin K.K., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs. 20,00,000/- The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 28.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vibin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for my consideration is whether the NFAC was justified in confirming the disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. Undisputedly, the appellant had sold the property for a consideration

Sourabh Sharma, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 342/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.342/Ind/2025 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Saurabh Sharma, aaly7 | NFAC, 15 Tirupati Nagar, Vs. | Delhi Airport Road, Indore (PAN:ARMPS8644MB) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Shreya Jain, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, DR Date

Rajesh Kumar Saxena, Pachore Rajgarh vs. ITO Rajgarh, Rajgarj Mp

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 327/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

submitted that after the initial round of hearing before the “impugned order” was passed the first appeal was migrated to the NFAC and an ex-parte order came to be issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by him that in the earlier and initial round of hearings

Late Shri Ramanand Taparia Th/Lh Chandadevi Taparia, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centreq, Delhi

ITA 262/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.262 & 261/Ind/2025 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Late Ramanand Taparia बनाम / NFAC, Though L/H Chanda Devi Vs. Delhi Taparia, 358-AC Scheme No.74C, Near Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir, Indore (PAN:AASPT7537K) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.S.Deshpande, AR Revenue ... raised following grounds of appeal in the Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 147. The re-opening is bad in law and hence the assessment be annulled

Late Shri Ramanand Taparia Th/Lh Chanda Devi Taparia, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 261/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.262 & 261/Ind/2025 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Late Ramanand Taparia बनाम / NFAC, Though L/H Chanda Devi Vs. Delhi Taparia, 358-AC Scheme No.74C, Near Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir, Indore (PAN:AASPT7537K) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.S.Deshpande, AR Revenue ... raised following grounds of appeal in the Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 147. The re-opening is bad in law and hence the assessment be annulled

Murlidhar Lohia, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 418/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Murlidhar Lohia V. The Income Tax Officer 106, Anand Palace Ward 1(3)(1) Allengaj, Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Akbpl3586F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.04.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 16.08.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,42,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act, On The Basis Of The Information That The Assessee Had Received Cash Credit Of Rs.14,21,000/- During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Details Of The Aforesaid Cash Credit With Documentary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.04.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 272A(1)(d) and 271AAC(1) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason ITA No.418//LKW/2025 Page 3 of 8 of delay in filing the appeal

Santosh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla v. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony NFAC Lucknow (U.P) TAN/PAN:BAWPS5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This appeal ... been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee of Planning Research and Action Division of State Planning Institute, since

Ram Ratan Singh Pal, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 387/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 270ASection 44A

BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal v. The assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj NFAC Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) TAN/PAN:ahqpp7018n (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar ... This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.01.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration

All India Minorities Welfare Soceity, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 386/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 All India Minorities V. The Income Tax Officer Welfare Society (Exemption) 4-A, La Palace, Shahnajaf Lucknow Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aacta4540P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.02.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 272A(2)(e) of the Act, separately. 2.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.6 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order

Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamuna Nagar Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA and Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Kumar: Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.03.2024 of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal, as taken by the Assessee in Form 36, are reproduced as under: 1 For both

Ganesh Ramnath Dhoot, Sambhajinagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Auranganad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2367/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Garud, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 01/07/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), which is arising

Discovery Digital Network Private Limited, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nashik

ITA 2886/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 23Section 234DSection 244A

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.10.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”/“NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing

Dnyanyogi Foundation Sangli, Sangli vs. CIT-Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 174/PUN/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025
For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36ASection 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO 22(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 964/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 964/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Pawan Kumar Agarwal,………….………...……Appellant P-912, Lake Town, Block-A, Kolkata-700089, West Bengal [Pan:Acvpa3110A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-22(2), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 69A

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.12.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The appeal is time barred by 66 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before ... Lake Town, Block-A, Kolkata-700089, West Bengal (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(2), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014 (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; 3 Pawan Kumar Agarwal (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Benzmark Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2122/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2122/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Benzmark Credit Capital Pvt. Limited,…..…Appellant C/O. Kedia Agarwal & Associates, 41, B.B. Ganguly Street, Central Plaza, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700012 [Pan:Aabcb2842H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Pramod Himmatsinghka, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144BSection 147

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.08.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2013-2014. 1 Benzmark Credit Capital Pvt. Limited 2. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee ... Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 3 Benzmark Credit Capital Pvt. Limited (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

K.Y.S. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2092/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Any Other Issue.

Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 15.07.2022, 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 Ld. AO has made two additions