← 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

Kashipur Brihandayatan Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Purulia vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2), Purulia

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 249/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 249/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Kashipur Brihadayatan Credit Cooperative Society Limited,………………………………………Appellant Vill. & P.O. Kalapathar, District-Purulia-723121, West Bengal [Pan:Aaaak9453E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Purulia, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri M. Goenka, C.A. & Shri S. Goenka, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

view that interest income should be allowed as deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and thereby the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has rightly held by deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO and hence we find no infirmity in the order ... NFAC. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 8. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd.(supra) and the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case

Bijaya Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1754/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1754/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Bijaya Saha,…………….……………..……...……Appellant 135/1, Collin Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Atgps1165D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-32(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Mathur, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144

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 04.10.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-2018. 1 Bijaya Saha 2. The appeal is time barred by 216 days in filing the appeal ... have access to his Accountant and also other professionals to handle the said matter. No such notices were ever issued by the NFAC and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not served upon him either through e-mail or through registered post or any other form. When

M/S. Tedium Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue

ITA 1214/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: the AO. Finally the AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2 The only issue raised by the assessee is against the addition

Lizard Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 148

George Mathan, JM : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 28.07.2022 for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2016-2017. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee. Shri Santanu Ghosh

Lizard Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 180/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 148

George Mathan, JM : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 28.07.2022 for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2016-2017. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee. Shri Santanu Ghosh

Lizard Trading Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 179/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 148

George Mathan, JM : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 28.07.2022 for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2016-2017. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee. Shri Santanu Ghosh

Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Salem

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2358/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2358/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 4-B, Lakshmipuram, Circle-(1), Gandhi Road, Salem-636 007. Salem. [Pan: Aagcs 3528 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

come in appeal before this Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Order of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC dismissing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The Addl. CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance ... Rs.17,28,945/- made by the CPC applying u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. The Addl. CIT(A) NFAC failed to appreciate that the disallowance of PF & ESI cannot be made in the Intimation u/s.143(1) passed on 29.3.2019 since the enabling amendment came into effect from

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur

ITA 1889/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

cross appeals filed by the assessee and Department respectively against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19. :-2-: ITA. No.:1502 & 1889 /Chny/2025 1.1 At the outset ... TOTAL 1,87,26,02,065 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. :-4-: ITA. No.:1502 & 1889 /Chny/2025 5. The Ld.CIT(A), vide the impugned order dated 31.03.2025 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He allowed

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Trichy

ITA 1502/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

cross appeals filed by the assessee and Department respectively against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19. :-2-: ITA. No.:1502 & 1889 /Chny/2025 1.1 At the outset ... TOTAL 1,87,26,02,065 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. :-4-: ITA. No.:1502 & 1889 /Chny/2025 5. The Ld.CIT(A), vide the impugned order dated 31.03.2025 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. He allowed

Vijay Shambhulal Jobanputra, Mumbai vs. ACIT -17(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5792/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr. K. Shivram a/w Shashi Bekal

raising following grounds: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the value adopted by the Ld. Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without giving an opportunity of being heard by Vijay Shambhulal Jobanputra Vijay Shambhulal ... circumstances of the cas 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the e and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the value adopted by the Ld. Ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the value adopted by the Ld. Ld. NFAC

Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5726/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

For Respondent: Mr. Haridas Bhatt
Section 115BSection 69A

year 2019-2020, raising following grounds: Ground I A. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni filing and merits of the case is bad at law. filing

Rohit Amritlal Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle 16(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5541/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri. Apurva ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 08.07.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year ... grounds of appeal are as follows: “The National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC has erred as under:- 1. In merely holding that as no addition was made u/s 143(3) no appeal lies against the said order. P a g e | 2 ITA NO. 5541/mum/2025. 2. In not adjudicating that while

Ratan N Motwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5532/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad- CIT
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 29.08.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year

Raheja Sherwood Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5228/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Raheja Sherwood Ito Ward 41 (4) (3), Cooperative Housing Society C41-43, G Block Bkc, Ltd., Gilban Area, Nirlon Compound, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Western Express Highway, Bandra East, Goregaon East, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400063. Pan: Aabtr1763L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared Its Total Income At Rs.38,15,171/- & Claimed The Deduction Of Rs. Rs.35,10,843/- U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act, By Filing Its Return Of Income For The A.Y Under Consideration On Dated 09/01/2021, Which Was Subsequently Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Resulted Into Assessing The Income Of The Assessee To The Rs.17,16,067/- While Disallowing Of Deduction Claimed U/S 2 M/S. Raheja Sherwood Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(5)Section 143Section 2Section 250Section 80P(2)(D)

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nevales Networks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 20-05-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the levy of penalty ... accordingly submitted that the penalty so levied be sustained and the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC be set aside. 11. In his submissions, the Ld.AR submitted that it is a settled legal proposition that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate proceedings. As far as levy of penalty

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -41(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed

ITA 4098/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT

Ador Welding Limited (Successor of Ador Fontech Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we set-aside the order of the Ld

ITA 3338/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2021-22 Ador Welding Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor Of Ador Fontech Limited), Income Tax, Ador House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), 6 K Dubash Marg, Fort, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aaaca9076B Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld. CIT(A)‟], dated 17-12-2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. 2 2. At the outset, it is noted that there

Income Tax Officer, Lower Parel vs. Bhavani Balasubramaniam Iyer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2933/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

cross-appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 25-02-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 in the context of order u/s. 147 read 144 r.w.s. 144B ... appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, dt. 25-02-2025 in the context of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the case

Income Tax Officer, Pirmal Chamber, Lower Parel vs. Bhavani Balasubramaniam Iyer, Mumbai

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

ITA 2932/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

cross-appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 25-02-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 in the context of order u/s. 147 read 144 r.w.s. 144B ... appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, dt. 25-02-2025 in the context of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the case

Bhavani Lyer, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(1)A, Mumbai

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

ITA 2777/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

cross-appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 25-02-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 in the context of order u/s. 147 read 144 r.w.s. 144B ... appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, dt. 25-02-2025 in the context of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the case