“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

Anshul Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1301/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.)

Section 115BSection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Shri Jitendra Behl, Sriganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1080/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mrs. Raksha Birla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the validity and legality of order passed by the Ld AO which is bad in law and bad in facts ... That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the juridication of ITO ward,3(2) Jaipur whereas the legal & valid juridication lies with ITO sriganganagar. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Sodhi Garments, Ludhiana vs. Assessing Officer, Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 399/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. That The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Notice Of Hearing From The Ld.Cit (Appeals). A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Of The Ld.Cit (Appeals) Also Reveals That The Same Is An Ex-Parte Order Of The Cit (Appeals). Though The Ld.Cit (Appeals) Has Mentioned That The Notices Were Sent On The Registered E-Mail Id Of The Assessee, However, Plea Of T He Assessee Is That It Did Not Come To The Notice Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

HEARING आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.01.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi pertaining to 2017-18 assessment year. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. After perusing the facts and circumstances of the case

Satinder Paul Through L/H Neelam Saini, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 136/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(1)

HEARING आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.12.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi pertaining to 2017-18 assessment year. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal : 1. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred ... 31/01/2020 pertaining to the A.Y. 2017-18, has again decided the matter in favour of the assessee. 21. Further, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in case of Shri Raj Kumar Singh pertaining to A.Y 2017-18 vide order dt. 18/08/2021 has again decided the matter allowing the exemption under

ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1306/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 68

SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 11/04/2025, passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 1. "%थ$ / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Krunal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 253Section 270A(9)Section 5

order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 24.04.2024 confirming the levy of penalty for mis-reporting of income as a consequence of under reporting of income in terms of provisions

Rohit Prakashchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 147Section 148

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 19.12.2023 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 in the proceeding under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income

Gajiben Mahotji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(8), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 324/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 45

order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 28.03.2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year

Bundy India Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, Ground Number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1403/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bundy India Limited The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.2, Circle-1(1) V/S. Gidc Industrial Estate, Baroda Makarpura Vadodaria - 390 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacb 3039 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 24/02/2016, passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Shri Murli Manohar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mahad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 934/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.934/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Murli Manohar Nagari V Income Tax Officer. Sahakaripatsansthamaryadit, S. 1295, Pimpal Par, M.G.Road, Juni Peth, Mahad, Mahad – 402301. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabas5404L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Shaha Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 11.03.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 263 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, Dated 17.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2017-18, dated 11.03.2024 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 263 read with section

Kapil Chamanlal Setia, Dhule vs. Addl/Joint/Dy/Asst.CIT/ITO, Itd, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 810/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal before this Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : “1) In the facts, circumstances and position of law learned CIT (A), NFAC erred in rejecting the additional evidences furnished during the course of appellate proceedings, which were relevant and crucial to the grounds in appeal ... facts, circumstances and position of law learned CIT (A), NFAC erred in, while confirming the additions made by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, on one hand admitting that the bank accounts with SVC Co-op Bank Ltd. Dhule and Corporation Bank, Dhule does not belongs to appellant

Tejas Shivaji Adsul, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

Murkunde could further not dispute the fact that right from the Assessing Officer's twin assessments to his Impugned penalty orders as well the NFAC detailed discussion, the learned lower authorities have nowhere specified the corresponding "sub-limbs" (a to D in sub-sec.(9) of sec.270

DCIT Circle-1, Nashik vs. Jyoti Paper Udyog Limited, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40(2)(a)Section 92Section 92BSection 92B(1)

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) [NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.01.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C

Jetsynthesys Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 346/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jetsynthesys Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Limited, 101-104, 1St Floor, Metro House, Mangaldas Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaicm1358A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of The Act It Be Held That The Penalty Imposed U/S 270A

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Amit Suresh Agrawal, Satara vs. ITO Ward-2, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2225/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Satyamev Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2036/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2036/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Satyamev Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. 1, Maratha Tower, Raviwar Karanja, Nashik – 422001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aakas2833C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22 Dated 17.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 80P

Rashmi Arun Chougule, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1892/PUN/2025[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1892/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rashmi Arun Chogule, V The Income Tax Officer, 1557, D Ward, Dhanawade S Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. Galli, Shukrawarpeth, Kolhapur – 416002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aehpc4149R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 20.06.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

30/10/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2014-15 dated 20.06.2025 emanating from the Penalty Order passed under section ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), Delhi, erred in appreciating fact that the quantum appeal against the assessment order has been restored to the file of the CIT (A) by the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune

Deepak Sarda, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Pune, Maharashtra

ITA 1580/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Adv. Simran Dhawan (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

above batch of three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 09.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. In ITA No.1578/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the various additions made ... Assessing Officer. In ITA No.1579/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC partly sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In ITA No.1580/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged

Deepak Sarda, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Pune, Maharashtra

ITA 1579/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Adv. Simran Dhawan (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

Deepak Sarda, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Pune, Maharashtra

ITA 1578/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Adv. Simran Dhawan (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A