← 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

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5521/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

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 25-02-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1.On ... while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, who vide his order dt. 20-05-2022, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ITAT, Mumbai, wherein

Sol Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4924/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

challenging the impugned order dt. 07.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the 2. case was called repeatedly. After going through

S D Bhalerao Constructions Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the matters restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication

ITA 3959/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

percent on closing stock for both assessment years, and the disallowance under section 14A. It has been urged that the appellate proceedings before the NFAC were finalized entirely exparte, as the assessee was not aware of any notices, communications, or opportunities issued by the NFAC due to the very circumstances

S D Bhalerao Constructions Pvt Ltd Project Building No. 58 Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the matters restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication

ITA 3958/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

percent on closing stock for both assessment years, and the disallowance under section 14A. It has been urged that the appellate proceedings before the NFAC were finalized entirely exparte, as the assessee was not aware of any notices, communications, or opportunities issued by the NFAC due to the very circumstances

Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3393/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

challenging the impugned order dt. 09.05.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15. The only ground raised by the assessee relates to 2. challenging the order

ACIT-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nirjala Teleholdings Ltd, Thane

ITA 1558/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Judicial, Quasi-Judicial, Or Arbitral Authorities. 3. We Have Carefully Perused The Said Order Of The Nclt. Paragraph 40 Thereof Makes It Abundantly Clear That The Application Of The Financial Creditor Under Section 7(5) Of The Code Has Been Admitted & That The Moratorium Stipulated Under Section 14(1) Has Commenced From The Very Date Of That Order. The Relevant Portion Of The Nclt’S Direction Reads As Under:

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 7Section 7(5)

appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against separate impugned orders, both dated 10 December 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, pertaining to the assessments framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years

ACIT-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nirjala Teleholdings Limited, Thane

ITA 1557/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Judicial, Quasi-Judicial, Or Arbitral Authorities. 3. We Have Carefully Perused The Said Order Of The Nclt. Paragraph 40 Thereof Makes It Abundantly Clear That The Application Of The Financial Creditor Under Section 7(5) Of The Code Has Been Admitted & That The Moratorium Stipulated Under Section 14(1) Has Commenced From The Very Date Of That Order. The Relevant Portion Of The Nclt’S Direction Reads As Under:

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 7Section 7(5)

appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against separate impugned orders, both dated 10 December 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, pertaining to the assessments framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years

Anand Ashok Chandavarkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3808/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankaranand Ashok Chandavarkar V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – C/O S.S. Tumkar, 202, Shreeji बनाम 31(1)(1), Room No. 203, 2Nd Darshan Chsl, Hanuman Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Road, Ville Parle East, To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 057, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ablpc0382R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh & Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Anand Ashok Chandavarkar, Mumbai 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] erred in passing the order dated 21.06.2024 upholding the action of the 1d Income Tax Officer-31(1)(1). Mumbai (hereinafter

Gupta Subhash & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 34(3), Delhi, Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhiraja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 05.10.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee ... extent of Rs.52,62,000/-. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions. After considering the details submitted by the assessee, he observed that in comparison to previous financial years, assessee has made huge cash deposit with reference to total

Vardhman International, Panipat, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5726/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nam Chand Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt. Year : 2017-18 VARDHMAN INTERNATIONAL, vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI 11170B, BISHAN SARUP COLONY, PANIPAT-132103, HARYANA, PANIPAT (PAN: AAEFV0015G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nam Chand Jain, AR Respondent by : Shri Manoj ... Date of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072381357(1), order dated 21.01.2025 on the following ground:- “Assessing Officer has levied

Anupama Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT 61.1, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5676/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 54Section 69

Date of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078813311(1), order dated 23.07.2025 on the following grounds:- 1. The CIT(A) has violated principles of natural justice by not considering fresh ... addition of Rs. 17,21,385/- u/s. 69 and completed on a total income of Rs. 32,79,330/-. Aggrieved, assessee appealed before the NFAC, who vide its order dated 23.7.2025 has upheld the addition. Against the aforesaid, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf

Avann Buildsys Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Karnal, Haryana

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5657/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goel, CA (Thru VC)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA

Spectrum Talent Management, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner Circle 59(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds as above

ITA 4000/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Spectrum Talent Management, Vs Acit, B-46, Retreat Apartments, Circle 59(1), 20, Ip Extension, Delhi Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Abmfs3316G (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-19/10265/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 19.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle 59(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.04.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-19/10265/2018-19 arising out of the appeal ... total expenditure amounting to Rs. 4,58,622/- (i.e. 10% of above total expenses Rs, 45,86,226/- disallowed. In appeal, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has sustained the disallowance of travelling of ITAs No.4000/Del/2025 Rs. 1,80,245/- instead of Rs. 1,93,420/-. Further, sustained the disallowance

Ilam Singh Saini Proprietor of Shiv Engineering and Consultants, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(1)(3), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed by the Ld

ITA 3823/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrailam Singh Saini Proprietor Of Income Tax Officer, Shiv Engineering & Ward-5(1) (3), Consultants, Vs. Noida. D-113, Sector-7, Noida-201301 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aoups4088L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manish Kumar Maurya, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12 /11/2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 03.04.2024 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Notices Which Were Not Received & They Were Uploaded The Portal Of The Department, However, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Proceedings Nor Such Ilam Singh Saini Proprietor Of Shiv Engineering & Consultants Vs. Ito Notices Were Brought To His Knowledge By The Accountant Of The Assessee, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Ao Or Before The Cit(A). He Thus Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250(6)

SUDHIR PAREEK, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A) in short] dated 03.04.2024 passed U/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year

Vinod Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO Ward-5, Karnal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3660/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor Of Vinod Enterprises, Ward-5, R/O- H. No.920, Sector-13, Karnal Karnal, Haryana Pan: Adepk5811G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajeev Sachdewa, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

Section 147

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Tecxpert Software Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 3079/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 04.03.2025for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the AO received ... form of purchase/investment/advance to a company which has no worth to investment. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) observed that the AO has made the addition based

Jagdish Chand Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 67(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2417/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2014-15 Jagdish Chand Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Pramod Shukla, Ward-67(2), 3748, First Floor, Kucha Delhi. Parmanand, Daryaganj. Pan: Aanpv4931G

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 54Section 68

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.02.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-21/10794/2016-17 arising out of the appeal before

Van Bros Construction Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 2381/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2381/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम Van Bros Construction Pvt. Ltd., Assessment Unit B-113, Lajpat Nagar-1, Vs. Income Tax Department, New Delhi. National Faceless Appeal, Pan No.Aaacv1092J Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234D

PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 12.02.2025 for the AY 2019-20 has raised the following grounds: 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Notice u/s 148 issued ... assessee that notice u/s 148 dated 13.04.2023 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). 9. That the AO’s order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case in so far it relates to addition of Rs.24

Asia International Advertisement and Retail Solutions Private Limited, Rohini vs. ACIT/ DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi, Central Revenue Building

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

ITA 2373/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2373/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Asia International & Retail Acit, Solutions Private Limited, Vs. Circle 1(1), Plot No.117, Pocket B-5, Delhi. Sector-4, Rohini. Pan No.Aajca5451H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 05.02.2024 for the AY 2012-13 in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that the appeal is filed

Manisha, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 2271/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2022-23 Manisha, Vs. Ito, 2423, Nehru Chowk, Ward 2(1)(3), Garh Road Atal Pura, Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, Hapur – 245 101, Ghaziabad, Up. Uttar Pradesh. Pan : Cqmpm3043B

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Singh, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.03.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.NFAC/2021-22/10331453 arising out of the appeal before it against