“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

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Indore, Aayakar Bhawan Indore vs. Gurdeep Singh Chhabra, Indore

ITA 726/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आदेश/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 08.08.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.05.2023 passed by Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department ["AO"] u/s 147 r.w.s.144B ... assessee on the Ground of Limitation, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and, in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC erred in not adjudicating the Ground Nos.3 to 6 Grounds of Appeal raised in 1st Appeal by the appellant on merits of the case. Ground

Shivkripa Devcons Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Or Other, National Faceless Assessment Centre

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 594/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Indore16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. NO.594/Ind/2024 Assessment Year 2013-14 Shivkripa Devcons Private ITO or Other , बनाम/ Limited, NFAC, Vs. C 4-5 Shivkripa Colony, Delhi Sajan Nagar Road, Indore (PAN: AAPCS3382K) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by S/Shri Soumya Bumb and Ayush Garg, ARs Revenue ... FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing Number: ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1035532390(1) dated 13.09.2021 passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act the total income of the assessee company was computed at Rs.78,00,000/- + Returned Income of Rs.49,570/-. The assessee

Kiran Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 853/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

working 2,2A & 3 3. Computation Sheet Capital Gain working 4 to 19 4. Copy of written submission made before Hon’ble 20-26 NFAC dated 3-03-2022 5. Affidavit of Ms. Kiran Yadav 27 to29 6. Copy of original return filed

Anguri Devi Khandelwal (Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir), Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur

ITA 389/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurva Awasthi, Ld. JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 148A

Anguri Devi and the order under section 148A(d) passed against her legal heir, and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, have been challenged. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. Contentions 3. On behalf of the assessee, legal heir of Smt. Anguri Devi Khandelwal, it has been submitted ... issued. Letters 5 Anguri Devi Khandelwal L/h Radha Mohan Khandelwal, Jaipur. dated 18.11.2022 and 25.01.2022 were issued by the office of NFAC. All these came to be issued against a dead person Factum of death was brought to the notice of the department also in reply to a show cause

Alka Khandaka, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Mukesh Sharma, Jagannat Ganj, Biswan Sitapur vs. ITO, Sitapur

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

ITA 406/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshramukesh Sharma V. Ito 30 Jagannat Ganj, Biswan Sitapur-261201. Sitapur-261201. Pan:Aweps9987J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 44A

year 2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 06.03.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1. On the basis of facts AMD circumstances, the notice issued by the Ld. Authorities

Syed Asif Ali, Lucknow vs. DCIT-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/LKW/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Syed Asif Ali, Vs. Dcit-1, 4/19 Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, U.P. Lucknow Pan: Aedpa5031J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Mazhar Akram, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Addl / Jcit(A), Ahmedabad Dated 27.01.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl / Jcit Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 22.07.2022, In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Looking Into The Merit Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Aggregated Additions Of Rs. 3,04,76,240/-Made By The Assessing Authority To The Returned Income Of The Assessee While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The I.T. Act By Grossly Ignoring The Settled Law That The Provisions Contained U/S 143(1) Of The Act Does Not Empower The Assessing Officer To Make Any Addition Which Is In The Nature Of Debate & Discussions & Also Requires Detailed Explanations & Submissions From The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,33,88,200/-Made By The Ld. A.O. On The Wrong Premise That The Amount Of The Contingent Liabilities Of Rs.2,33,88,200/- Disclosed By The Auditors At Column 21(G) Of Their Form 3Cd Were Debited To The Profit & Loss Account Of The Year Under Consideration Ignoring The Fact That It Was Just A Disclosure Of The Contingent

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT DR

Section 143(1)

orders of the ld. AO dated 22.07.2022, in limine. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without looking

Aryavart Bank, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 800/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 250(68)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not granting opportunity to the Appellant Bank to present the case through video conferencing as specified under faceless appeal scheme, 2020 provided

Income Tax Officer, Lucknow vs. Shyam Sagar Yadav, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.445/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Lucknow V. Shyam Sagar Yadav 57, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 225, Jiamau, Hazratganj, Ram Teerath Marg, Narhi, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Bdkps3230A अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Harshit Tahilramani, Aca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 16 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Tahilramani, ACAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 69A

VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.04.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1.Because on the facts and circumstances

Ranjeet Singh, Lucknow vs. D/ACIT-4, Lucknow

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

ITA 331/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit / Acit-4, 459, Ameer Nagar, Aishbagh, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226004 Pan: Afsps0877G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed On 21.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding An Addition Of Rs.31,90,000/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period As Unexplained, The Same Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, Be Deleted. 02. Because The Entire Cash Deposited In Bank Is Part Of The Sale Proceeds & Realization Of Debts, The Addition Made Is Purely On Suspicions & Surmises, Such Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, Be Deleted. 03. Because There Being No Change In The Method Of Accounting Regularly Followed By The Assessee & The Same Having Being Consistently Accepted, The Books Of Account Having Not Been Rejected, The Stock Tally Not Disputed, The Accounts Being Tax Audited, There Was No Reason For The Ao To Disbelieve The Cash Deposited In The Bank Treating The Same As Unexplained, The Addition Of Rs.31,90,000/- Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 04. Because The Amount Of Rs.31,90,000/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank Being Part Of Sale Proceeds & Cash Receipts Already Charged To Revenue For The Purposes Of Computation Of Income, Separate Addition Of The Same Has Resulted Into Double Taxation, Not Permitted By Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 22.03.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer passed on 21.12.2019. The grounds of appeal

Amit Saini, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra, Haryana, Ward-I, Kuk

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

ITA 929/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite several notices under Section 250 being issued electronically to the registered e-mail address, there was no compliance by the assessee. The CIT(A), therefore, proceeded ex parte and held that the assessee had failed to substantiate his grounds of appeal or file any documentary evidence in support of his claim. 7.1 The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the addition under Section 144 of the Act since the assessee had not availed the

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Rajinder Kumar Garg, Patiala, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, and the addition stands restricted to Rs

ITA 607/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Add. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

/Date of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal by the assessee arises from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi, dated 07.04.2025, for A.Y. 2017-18, against assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the ITO, Ward ... present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(А), NFAC in Appeal No. CIT (A), Patiala/10264/2019-20 has erred in passing order u/s 250 dtd.07.04.2025 as the same is in contravention of provisions

Bhagwant Kaur, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148rSection 251(1)(a)Section 69

present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10135340 has erred in passing order dtd. 27.12.2024 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Nabha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 32(1)

this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 2.1.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2 121-Chd-2023 M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd, Nabha 2. The revised grounds of appeal are as under

Vanrajsinh D. Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 733/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.733/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Vanrajsinh D. Vaghela The Ito बनाम/ 1, Kum Kum Park Society Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Nr.Somnath Society Ahmedabad – 380 015 Highway Road Sanand Ahmedabad – 382 110 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abrpv 5389 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parin S. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 50C

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 25/02/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 2. "%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / 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

Base Metal Chemicals, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3) Now Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 361/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The First Appellate Authority Which Was Decided By Ld. Cit(A) Vide The Impugned Order & The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40

Rs.5,47,164/- in respect of alleged suppression of conversion charges received by appellant. (2) That on facts, in law, and record, the learned NFAC has grievously ezred on evidence on in confirming the addition of Rs.13,59,000/- in respect of alleged excessive conversion charges paid by appellant ... That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,02,59529/-in respect of alleged suppression of sales by way of under invoicing. (4) That on facts, in law, and record, the learned NFAC has grievously erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 1 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Hdb Financial Services Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1507/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80G

NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 04.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income

Indian Ion Exchange & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1) Previously Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1420/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 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 30.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1369/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)], both dated 29.10.2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 and 21.11.2024 for A.Y. 2016-17, arising ... updated on the Income- tax Portal due to technical constraints. Consequently, all electronic notices and orders from the office of the CIT(A), NFAC, continued to be delivered to the old and inactive e-mail address, about which the assessee and her consultant remained unaware. The assessee further affirmed that

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)