← 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

Brijwasi Food Industries, Ghaziabad vs. Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5784/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Ito, Brijwasi Food Industries, C-23, Sector B2, Tronica Ward-2(1)(1), City, Loni S O Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Up Pan: Aasfb5030B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Amar Nath, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 5768/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Amar Nath, Omaxe City, Sonipat Sonipat Pan: Aiupa9685P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078494149(1), Dated 15.07.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges At The Outset During The Course Of Hearing That The Learned Cit(A)/Nfac In Its Order Has Proceeded Ex-Parte Against The Assessee Thereby Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making The Corresponding Disallowance/Addition Herein. 3. The Revenue Argues During The Course Of Hearing In Support Of Cit(A)’S Finding That The Assessee Had Not Filed Any Explanation Or Evidence Supporting It’S Case. 4. I Have Given My Thoughtful Consideration To The Foregoing Rival Stands & Is Of The Considered View That Since The Cit(A) Has Proceeded Ex-Parte Against The Assessee, Possibility Of Some Communication Gaps Between The Taxpayer & The Arguing Counsel Involving The Newly Introduced System Of Faceless Hearings, Could Not Be Altogether Ruled Out. 5. Faced With This Situation, In The Larger Interest Of Justice, I Deem It Appropriate To Restore The Assessee’S Instant Appeal Back To The Cit(A)/Nfac For It’S Afresh Appropriate Adjudication, Within Three Effective Opportunities Subject To A Rider That The Taxpayer Shall Plead & Prove The Case At His Own Risk & Responsibility, In Consequential Proceedings. Ordered Accordingly.

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Pooran, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(5), Shamli

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5738/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Pooran, Moh. Khail, Thana Bhawan, Ward-3(1)(5), Dist. Shamli, Shamli Pan: Dkppp2053G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

The Hisar Ram Nagar Cooperative Hb Society Limited, Hisar vs. Itd; CPC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5524/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Assessment Unit, The Hisar Ram Nagar Cooperative Hb Society Income Tax Department, Limited, H. No. 2, Balwant Delhi Singh, Near Hanuman Mandir, New Aggarsain Colony, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Aagat9682C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Naveen Kumar, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5512/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Naveen Kumar, 23/671, Dda Flats, New Delhi Madangir, New Delhi Pan: Anmpk5427C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitin Kumar Rai, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 144Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Harjeet Singh Kalra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5446/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Sh. Vikram Bakshi, New Delhi

ITA 453/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Circle 4(2) Vs. Sh. Vikram Bakshi Room No. 384, 157, Golf Links 157 Golf C. R. Building Links, Lodi Road, H.O. Delhi – 110002 Kasturba Nagar South East Delhi 110003, Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aenpb4926R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Cross Objection filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively are directed against the order passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 27.11.2024 arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.05.2023 passed by the NFAC, Delhi under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income

Accuster Technologies Private Limited, Delhi vs. Ward 1(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4157/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 35

Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 21.04.2025 for A.Y 2018-19. Page 1 of 4 Accuster Technologies [A.Y 2018-19] 2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel

Iqbal Haseeb, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Moradabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4047/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2022-23 Mr. Iqbal Haseeb, Vs Ito, Prop. M/S Ih Exports Inc., Ward 2(1), 73/G 16 Tar Wali Kothi, Moradabad (Up). Peerzada Road, Katghar, Moradabad – 244 001, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Abiph2264E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patwari & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10414497 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.02.2024 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 2(1), Moradabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.04.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.NFAC/2021-22/10414497 arising out of the appeal before it against ... payments made to non-GST entities and there was certain mismatch. As before the ld.CIT(A) also the assessee failed to appear, the NFAC entering into the merits, has dismissed the appeal on the basis that not even a single document is filed to substantiate the claim made

Shri Bijender Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4011/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Bijender Singh, Vs Ito, 7/51, Punjabi Bagh, Ward 2(1), West Delhi, Moradabad (Up). Delhi – 110 026. Pan: Agcps0787N (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-29, 10163/2012-13 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-26, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Pointed Out About The Delay In Filing The Appeal For Which An Application For Condonation Of The Delay Has Been Filed. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Had Inadvertently Not Noticed The Uploaded Impugned Order On The Portal. The Affidavit Of The Chartered Accountant Of The Appellant Is Enclosed Along With The Application. Considering The Responsibility Taken By The Counsel For Which The Assessee Should Not Suffer & Also Considering That The Delay Of 20 Days Is Not Of Any Substantial Period, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 147

However, the order records that no submissions were filed online. As we go through the impugned order, we find that in para 4, the NFAC mentions of the notices issued and that no submissions were filed and, accordingly, the appeal was decided on merits. As a matter of fact

Ankush Saluja, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5, Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3960/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2019-20 Ankush Saluja, Vs Dcit, 9-A, Jeevan Jyoti Farms, Cc-5, The Greens, Delhi Rajokri, New Delhi – 110 038. Pan: Aqdps8677G (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Raina Majumdar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-24/10647/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Passed U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Cc-05, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Raina Majumdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 147

order and the material on record, we find that the assessee had also raised legal grounds before the ld. CIT(A) also. However, the NFAC has dismissed the appeal on the basis of non-representation without adjudicating on the merits and especially on the legal grounds. 4. Accordingly

Joel Eliah Pusanur, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3517/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Joel Eliah Pusanur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of B-29B Ground Floor, Income Tax, Paryavaran Complex, Circle International Saidulajab South West Delhi, Taxation-1 (2)(2), Civic Paryavaran Complex, 110030, Centre, Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aajpe8821A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sidhesh Chaugule, Adv(Vc) Revenue By Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 Order

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

case of delay in filing Form No. 67. Same view is also taken by a coordinate division bench in Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi V CIT(A) NFAC Bang/2022 06.09.2022. It is well settled that while laying down a particular procedure, if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non-adherence ... case of delay in filing Form No. 67. Same view is also taken by a coordinate division bench in Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi V CIT(A) NFAC ITA No.680/Bang/2022 06.09.2022. It is well settled that while laying down a particular procedure, if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non- adherence

Sangeeta Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 28 (1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2495/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)

Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/national Faceless appeal Centre) Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/’ NFAC’ for short), dated 11/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that

Sangeeta Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 28 (1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2494/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)

Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/national Faceless appeal Centre) Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/’ NFAC’ for short), dated 11/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that

Kanvar Corporation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-50(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1683/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Kanvar Corporation, Vs Dcit, A-26, Basement & Ground Circle-50(1), Floor, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aalfk6427E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2016-17/10066962 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 21.12.2021 Passed U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ao, Nafac (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Section 270A

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.02.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.NFAC/2016-17/10066962 arising out of the appeal before it against ... wherein it was observed that the assessee had failed to appear for five years in the tax proceedings. However, there is no findings of NFAC on merits to show that the issues giving rise to levy of penalty u/s 270A were examined in the context of nature of disallowance

Sanjay Jain, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned penalty order dated 27

ITA 5867/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sanjay Jain, Vs Ito, D-386, Sector-10, Ward-3(3), Noida, Noida. Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Pan: Adgpj0804Q (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Shantanu Jain & Shri Jahanvi Khanna, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.09.2021 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 (Appeals), Ghaziabad/10264/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.06.2019 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-3(3), Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That By Way Of The Impugned Order, The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Challenged, But, The Subsequent Developments Are That By Order Dated 30.12.2024 The Assessee’S Quantum Appeal Was Allowed By The Cit(A) & The Matter Was Sent Back To The Ao For Making A Fresh Assessment Of Income Of The Appellant And, Thereupon By Order Dated 29.09.2025, In The Set Aside Proceedings, No Addition Has Been Made.

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.09.2021 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 (Appeals), GHAZIABAD/10264/2019-20 arising out of the appeal before

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. M/S Solution Marks, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5733/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year : 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Solution Marks, Ward 63(1) Shop No.2, Shiv Mandir New Delhi. Back Side Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Ext., Delhi – 110 055. Pan: Acgfs4256A Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 22.07.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-20/10882/2019-20, filed before him against ... Revenue opportunity to rebut the additional evidences furnished by the assessee by calling for remand report. On going through the impugned order of NFAC, we find that as with regard to the issue of additions made to the income of the assessee on the basis of deposit/credit in the bank

Champat Singh (Through Legal Heir Sh. Kannu Singh), Ghaziabad vs. The ITO-Ward-2(1)(2), Cgo Complex Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad

ITA 5623/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasstt. Yr: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Supertech India Private Limited, Delhi vs. JCIT, Delhi

ITA 5453/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year : 2016-17 Supertech India Private Ltd., Vs. Jcit, 2/19, Kalkaji Extn., Circle 77(1), New Delhi – 110 019. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacs0082K Assessee By : Shri Praveen Kumar, Advocate & Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 271C

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-8/10003/2020-21, filed before him against

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Delhi vs. Interlink Foods Private Limited, South Delhi

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4671/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gurdev Singh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The Revenue has filed appeals against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 07.08.2024 for AYs 2011-12, 2015-16 & CO Nos.126, 104 & 105/Del/2025 2016-17. The assessee has also filed ... under. 20. We observe that the present appeal is filed by Revenue assailing the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’) under Section 250 of the Income Tax, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 in the case of the assessee and the Assessee had filed cross