“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

M/S.H.K.Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

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

ITA 28/ALLD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Acit, Central Circle Ltd Allahabad 17, Industrial Colony, Naini 38, Mahatma Gandhi Allahabad-211008. Marg, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. H. K. Infraventure Pvt V. Assistant Commissioner Ltd Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Industrial Colony, Naini Income Tax Department Allahabad-211008. Nfac Delhi. Pan: Aacch6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application) Respondent By: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application)For Respondent: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 50C

Infraventure Pvt v. Assistant Commissioner Ltd of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Industrial Colony, Naini Income Tax Department Allahabad-211008. NFAC Delhi. PAN: AACCH6249K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Praveen Godbole, (Application) Respondent by: Shri. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 09 09 2025 Date of pronouncement ... imposition of penalty is totally incorrect, illegal rather baseless, hence penalty is unwarranted. 2. That in any view of the matter the CIT(A) NFAC it totally wrong in directing AO to reduce the penalty instead of CIT(A) NFAC is bound to delete the penalty in the facts

Samir Kumar Paikaray, Khurda vs. Income Tax Officer, Khurda

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

ITA 382/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 382/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Samir Kumar Paikaray,………….………….,…Appellant Sriram Nagar, Khurdha, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha [Pan:Ahcpp4275D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Khurda Ward, Khurda, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha Appearances By: Shri K.K. Bal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 5th June, 2025 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 1 Samir Kumar Paikaray 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased assessee ... Samir Kumar Paikaray, Sriram Nagar, Khurdha, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha (2) Income Tax Officer, Khurda Ward, Khurda, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha (3) CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi; 6 Samir Kumar Paikaray (4) CIT - ; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Apex Irrigation, Rajkot vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 94/RJT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 40Section 5Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Kandla Steel Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Gujarat

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

ITA 569/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 569/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Kandla Steel Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 105, Lotus Business Park, Ra Baug Plot No. 20A, Sector-8, Lane, Off. S.V. Road, Malad West, Gandhidham Mumbai-400064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck1337N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Thakur, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Thakur, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 14.07.2025, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

Om Ceramic Industries, Morbi vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Morbi

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

ITA 494/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 5

present appeal has been filed by the assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 29.07.2025, arising in the matter of order passed by the assessing officer u/s 272A

Nihil Nitinbhai Bhuptani, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 29A

against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 16.06.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B

Ravibhai Mansukhbhai Bhalara, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 2(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 304/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.304/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravibhai Mansukhbhai Bhalara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amin Marg, Vidhya Kunj Society, Ito Ward 2 (1)(1), T-Office, New Rajkot(Gujarat) - 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot(Gujarat) - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avqpb6946D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

appeal has been filed by the assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 15.01.2025, arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

Chandra Brothers, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Patna

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 393/PAT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), New Facts Were Presented On Which A Remand Report Was Duly Called From The Ld. Ao But Barring Partial Relief Being Given, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Largely Gone By The Findings Given By The Ld. Ao In The Original Assessment Order. It Was Prayed That In The Interests Of Substantive Justice, The Assessee Deserves Another Chance To Present The Facts Before The Ld. Ao So That There Is No Miscarriage Of Justice. The Ld. Ar Also Pointed Out That The Specific Ground Of Denial Of Opportunity Has Also Been Taken (Ground No. 5) & Again Requested That The Matter May Be Remanded To The File Of Ld.Ao For Fresh Assessment.

Section 250

order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 13.06.2025. 1.1. In this case, the Ld. AR mentioned has right at the outset, that the assessee could not comply

Manoj Kumar Das, Begusarai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 19.05.2025. 2.2 In this case, both the authorities below are seen to have passed exparte orders through which an addition

Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Surat

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 739/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sofia Twist & Text Pvt Ltd, Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) 3003, Rathi Palace, Kamela Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Darwaja, Ring Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majurgate, Surat - 395002 Surat - 395002 Pan No. Aadcs4384F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Suresh K Kabra, CA

Section 148Section 151Section 68

proper on the facts of the case and in issuing notice u/s.148 without proper sanction as per section 151. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.3 ... Assessing Officer and The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) confirmed by the Ld CIT(A)-NFAC deleted. may be kindly NFAC deleted. may be kindly 2.3 Personal hearing may be granted. ersonal hearing may be granted. 2.4 Any other relief that your

Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Umbergaon vs. ITO Ward-5, Vapi

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

ITA 659/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Ito Ward-5, Plot No. 244/28, Gidc, Fortune Square, Chala Road, Umbergaon-396171. Vs. Vapi-396191. Pan No. Abbpn 3355 M Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Parin Shah, CA

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds : 1. The order passed by AO and confirmed by NFAC is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in reopening of assessment ... NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 879390 as short term capital gain Kirti Karsandas Nayak 2 ignoring fact that appellant purchase car which does ignoring fact that appellant purchase car which does ignoring fact that appellant purchase car which does not result into

Pannalal Rampher Yadav, Silvasa vs. ITO, Silvassa

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

ITA 647/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 250(6)Section 69A

raising following grounds : 1. The order passed by the lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.2811341 u/s 69A of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant. 3. Ld. NFAC ought

Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

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 601/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Shaunak K. Zaveri, CA

Section 143(3)

raising following grounds: 1.0(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [here-in-after referred to as Ld. CIT(Appeals)] was not justified and grossly erred by without considering the facts, evidences and documents submitted

Sumitlal, Surat vs. ITO, Surat

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 545/SRT/2025[201011]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sumitlal, Ito 101-B/2, Sanskrut Flats Umra, Aayakar Bhavan, Bharthana, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395007 Pan No. Acxpl 1238 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nitin Paharia, CA&

Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

assessment year 2010-2011, raising following grounds: 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT (Appeals), NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. Rs. 2624315/- made by the Ld AO on account of unexplained ... investment under section 69 of the Act. 2. That while sustaining the impugned addition Ld CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law in ignoring the ITA No. 545/SRT/2025 2 Sumitlal fact as well law that tran fact as well law that transaction of mutual fund investment saction of mutual

Tirupati Shyam Enterprise, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tirupati Shyam Enterprise Nfac, Delhi Current F.P. No. 139 Orleaans, Near Jurisdiction: Dy. Cit Circle- Sosyo Circle Udhna Magadalla Vs. 1(1)(1), Road, Surat-395007. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aagft 3570 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 68

SURAT BENCH “DB” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tirupati Shyam Enterprise NFAC, Delhi Current F.P. No. 139 Orleaans, Near Jurisdiction: Dy. CIT Circle- Sosyo Circle Udhna Magadalla Vs. 1(1)(1), Road, Surat-395007. Aayakar Bhavan, Near ... that the impugned appellate order passed by the record, submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never received on the assessee

Alkeshkumar Maganbhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1(1) Bharuch, Bharuch

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Alkeshkumar Maganbhai Patel, Ito Ward 1(1), 30 Atmiya Nagar, Near Kgm Income Tax Office, Bharuch, Vidyalay Zadeshw Zadeshwar, Vs. Income-Tax Office, Hari Kunj, Bharuch-392011. Station Road, Bharuch-356069. Pan No. Bklpp 8435 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 80T

liable to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding the same as valid. 2. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,17,98,862/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Alkeshkumar Maganbhai Patel ... Alkeshkumar Maganbhai Patel Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in sustaining the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,261/ AO of Rs. 2,261/- after allowing deduction under section after allowing deduction under section 80TTA

Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

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 272/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, Ito Ward-2(3)(2), 84, Angreji Faliyu, Opp. Post Income Tax Office, Majura Gate, Office, Amroli, Surat-394107. Vs. Surat-395001. Pan No. Bczpp 8713 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate

Section 148Section 50C

grounds : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals, NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal although the notice issued u/s 148 of the I. T act, 1961 is barred by limitation and is therefore

Indravadan Gamanlal Gandhi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 142/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Indravadan Gamanlal Gandhi बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. At: Areth, Post. Areth, Tal: Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Surat, Mandvi, Surat-394 010 Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpn 9673 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Shaunak Zaveri, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271ASection 69A

order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 03.10.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed ... assessee appeals are as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, [here-in-after referred to as Ld.CIT(Appeals)] was 1 ITA No.142/SRT/2024/AY 2017-18 Indravadan G Gandhi not justified and grossly erred in dismissing

Hosdurg Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No C 1068, Kanhangad vs. Income Tax Officer, Kasaragod

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

ITA 665/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hosdurg Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanhangad, Hosdurg, Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Aaaah0337C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kasaragod ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 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 02.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 Was Filed On 22.11.2014 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 7,800/- After Claiming

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)(a)

Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 02.09.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is co-operative society registered under the Kerala State

Musthiri Shaji, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 621/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 20.06.2025 & 27.06.2024 for Assessment Years (AY) 2021-22 & 2014-15, respectively. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together ... filed on 30.12.2021 disclosing income of Rs. 4,58,110/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 06.12.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income