“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

Vasant Krishnaji Supekar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Pune

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

ITA 1899/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1899/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vasant Krishnaji Supekar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-6, Rajeshri Shahu Society, Ward-5(4), Pune Pune Satara Road, Bibvewadi S.O., Pune City, Pune 411037 Maharashtra Pan : Clpps2859R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri and Shri Saurabh PatilFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is against the order dated 17.06.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.12.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B

Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Pashan vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1758/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. Flat No.401, Bldg. No.A-2, Shivranjan Tower, Someshwarwadi, Pune- 411008. Pan : Aaqpl5138C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.01.2024 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Profession & Business Income In The Shape Of Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firm & Also Agricultural Income. The Assessee Furnished Her Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Disclosing Professional Income, Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

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

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.05.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income ... assessee vide purchase deed dated 1440/2016 in respect of acquisition of 66.91 sq meters of site/land.” 3. In appeal the CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “4. CIT(A)'s Decision: 4.1. The appellant's given written submissions and grounds

Kapse Foundation Yeola, Yeola vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1430/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Vijay Shambhuling Popade, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Latur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed being time barred

ITA 1197/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1197/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Vs Ito, Ward-1, Vijay Shambhuling Popade, Latur Popade Niwas, Pathak Galli, Latur-413512 Maharashtra Pan-Bkppp0696D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena, JCIT

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 22.11.2024 which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 144 dated

Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3, Satara

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

ITA 1002/PUN/2025[205-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

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

M/S. Bekaert Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Page 1 सत्यमेव जयते IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “C”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Monika Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1393/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz)

For Appellant: Shri Sidhartha Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT (Sr DR)

Section 147

directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 23.09.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), NFAC/2016-17/10166028 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 212 days. The assessee ... Advs, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2nd floor, Kolkata-700069 2. The Respondent : ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT- 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //// By order Asst

Narayani Shakti Enterprises, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1203/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Thard, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Section 148

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.03.2025, passed by the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 02 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed

Shashi Todi, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4792), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2666/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2666/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Shashi Todi, Vs Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata F-190, South Station Road, Salpata Bagan, Agarpara, Kolkata-700009 Pan No. :Abspt 8538 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.10.2024, Passed By The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. We Have Perused The Orders Of The Authorities Below. A Perusal Of The Assessment Order Shows Multiple Opportunities Had Been Given To The Assessee. The Assessee Has Not Responded To Any Of The Notices Issued. The Assessee Has Not Given Any Explanation As To Why He Has Not Represented Before The Assessing Officer. Before The Ld.Cit(A) The Appeal Has Also Been Filed Well Within Time. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Issued Multiple Notices. The Assessee Has Not Explained Anything As To Why The Assessee Has Failed To Represent Its Case Before The Ld.Cit(A). There Seems To Be A Trend That When The Issues Get Complicated & There Are Possibility Of Taking Any Legal Stands For Defending The Order, The Assessee Adopts Delay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.10.2024, passed by the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. We have perused the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of the assessment order shows multiple opportunities

Rabindra Nath Kundu, Kolkata vs. Commissioner of Incometax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1825/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1825/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Rabindra Nath Kundu, Vs Cit(A), Nfac 68/1, Dr B.C.Roy Road, Shyamnagar, 24 Pgs North, West Bengal-743127 Pan No. :Alzpk 1616 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.10.2024, Passed By The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 3 Days. No Condonation Petition Has Been Filed By The Assessee. Even The Assessee Has Also Filed Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Belatedly By 80 Days On The Basis Of Which The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. A Perusal Of The Assessment Order Shows Multiple Opportunities Had Been Given To The Assessee. The Assessee Has Not Responded To Any Of The Notices Issued. The Assessee Has Not Given Any Explanation As To Why He Has Not Represented Before The Assessing Officer. Before The Ld.Cit(A) The Appeal Has Also Been Filed Well Within Time. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Issued Multiple Notices. The Assessee Has Not Explained Anything As To Why The Assessee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1825/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Rabindra Nath Kundu, Vs CIT(A), NFAC 68/1, DR B.C.Roy Road, Shyamnagar, 24 PGS North, West Bengal-743127 PAN No. :ALZPK 1616 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee ... This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.10.2024, passed by the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 3 days. No condonation petition has been filed

Thanaraj Sumathi, Mayiladuthurai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2031/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

BALAGANESH, AM : This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, (in short Ld.CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2019-20, vide order dated 21.03.2025. 2. At the outset, we find there is delay of 53 days in filing ... Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘JAO‘) also is null in the eyes of law. 3. Ground No.5 is reproduced as under: 5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance

Ramalingam Ellalan, Erode vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1129/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1129/Chny/2025 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Ramalingam Ellalan, The Assistant Commissioner 279/1, Sathy Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Erode – 638 003. Central Circle-2 Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aafpe-9379-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

BALAGANESH, AM : This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, (in short Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19, vide order dated 22.03.2025. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction

Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Sivaganga vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

BALAGANESH, AM : This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, (in short Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15, vide order dated 12.07.2024. :-2-: ITA. No:1943/Chny/2024 2. The assessee had filed concise grounds of appeal before

Shankar Rajashekar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 59/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shambu Kulkarni, CA

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

Pronouncement : 14-10-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 22/06/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2016-17 and raised the following grounds: “The property in question has not been sold, and as such

Antrix Corporation Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40ASection 90A

respect of the A.Y. 2019-20 and raised the following grounds: “The Appellant objects to the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) on the grounds that – Page 2 of 6 Grounds Raised Tax Effect in INR The impugned order is opposed to law and facts of the case ... insofar as it is General ground prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. The Ld NFAC erred in not granting full relief to the Appellant despite having appreciated the correct legal position Approx that Foreign Tax Credit is allowable Rs. 36,48,394/- even in cases of delayed filing

ACIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Manohar Kanungo, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 685/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y. : 2009-10 C.O. No. 75/Mum/2025 : A.Y. : 2009-10 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 685/M/25)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Cross Objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 11-11-2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2 CO No. 75/MUM/2025 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee

Mitashi Edutainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai.

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

ITA 631/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 151Section 250

assessee challenging the different impugned orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15 to 2017-18. 2. Since all the issues involved in these four appeals are common and identical

Mitashi Edutainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai.

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

ITA 630/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 151Section 250

Mitashi Edutainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai.

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

ITA 629/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 148Section 151Section 250