← 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

Vishwa Infrastructure, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 950/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 250

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 14.08.2024, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short

Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel, Petlad vs. I.T.O Ward 1(3)(1), Petlad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 474/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jainish Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 13.02.2024 passed for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The assessment

Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel, Petlad vs. I.T.O Ward 1(3)(1), Petlad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 473/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jainish Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 13.02.2024 passed for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The assessment

Incometax Officer Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Jayshree Arvind Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 422/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL

Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah, Anand vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Ward-5, Anand

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

ITA 1627/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1627/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Assistant Commissioner Shah Of Income Tax (Osd) Vs. 3, Laksh Gold Bunglows, Ward-5, Anand B/H. Dz Patel High School, 80 Feet Road, Vidyanagar Road, Anand – 388001, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aprpj4087Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Viranch Modi, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2025 17/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

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 18.06.2025 confirming the levy of penalty for concealing particulars of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, levied under Section

M/S. 9Th Street Architects, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1463/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 154Section 250Section 69A

that date. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had wrongly invoked the provisions retrospectively. The assessee also relied upon Mohit Sakhija v. NFAC (2025) 175 taxmann.com 94 (ITAT Delhi) to argue that where the assessee has already declared the source for cash deposits in its books, the provisions ... also find merit in the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in Mohit Sukhija v. NFAC [2025] 175 taxmann.com 94 (Delhi - Trib.) / [2025] 213 ITD 251 (Delhi - Trib.) (dated 30.05.2025), wherein it has been held that when the assessee has already declared

Foram Foundation, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1139/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1139/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : N.A. Foram Foundation The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Office No.513, 6Th Floor, Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Lalita Tower Station Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatf 3741 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viranch Modi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Trust Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld.Cit(E)’] Dated 16/12/2024, Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Approval Under Sub-Clause(B) Of Clause (Iv) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The Income Tax, Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). Foram Foundation Vs. Cit (E)

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु' अपील 4. ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Maruti Brokerage House Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1080/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 156Section 250

orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi both dated 28.04.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year

Maruti Brokerage House Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 156Section 250

orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi both dated 28.04.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year

Medip Healthtech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1069/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 M/S.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Sf-210, Devashish Business Park Vs. Cir.2(1)(1) Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcm 0291 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Vinata Bhura, Ar Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 30Section 43B

MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee arises from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)”], dated 06.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2020–21, against the intimation issued under section

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 759/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69A

filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 19.03.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income

Kausalya Agro Farms Amd Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

ITA 804/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 23.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17. ITA No.804/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay

Kiran Reddy Muddasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1157/Hyd

ITA 1158/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2012-2013 Kiran Reddy Muddasani, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 035. Ward-9(3), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Bftpm6705H Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals Ita Nos.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac”], Delhi, Both Dated 26.05.2025 Arising From Assessment Order Passed U/Sec.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Income

For Appellant: Sri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Nos.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 by the Assessee are directed against the two separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, both dated 26.05.2025 arising from assessment order passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income 2 ITA.No.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 Tax Act, 1961 and penalty order

Kiran Reddy Muddasani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1157/Hyd

ITA 1157/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2012-2013 Kiran Reddy Muddasani, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 035. Ward-9(3), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Bftpm6705H Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals Ita Nos.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac”], Delhi, Both Dated 26.05.2025 Arising From Assessment Order Passed U/Sec.147 R.W.S.144 Of The Income

For Appellant: Sri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Nos.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 by the Assessee are directed against the two separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, both dated 26.05.2025 arising from assessment order passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income 2 ITA.No.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 Tax Act, 1961 and penalty order

Chandra Sekhar Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 1099/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Chandra Sekhar Ravula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-5(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Agkpr5081N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Chandra Sekhar Ravula vs. ITO Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14/05/2024 and 16/05/2024 which in turn arises from the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati vs. Venkata Swamy Ravuri, Chittoor

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

ITA 257/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Advocate Sashank Dundu
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 68

appeal is filed by the Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)"), dated 25.04.2022 for the A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order

J.L. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1911/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1911/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 J L. Infrastructures Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 12/5, Ayyasamy Street, West Income Tax, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcj9786E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madan Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madan Kumar, JCIT

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate placed

Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 1731/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1731/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 29A, Manthinapalli Vasal Street, Ward 1, Batlagundu Road, Begampur, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 002. [Pan:Acfpm9762L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidya, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee raised 3 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration

Mukesh Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 811/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 68Section 69A

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 20/12/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 10/05/2023, passed under ... circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Income