“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

Trine Infracon LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1397/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltrine Infracon Llp, Vs. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co., Dcit, Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 201, Devashish Complex, Nr. Ahmedabad Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off. Cg Road, Ahmedabad-380009 [Pan :Aajft 2084 N] (Appellant Appellant Appellant) Appellant .. (Respondent Respondent Respondent) Respondent Appellant By : Appellant By : Appellant By : Appellant By : Shri Maulik Kansara, Ar Respondent By Respondent By: Respondent By Respondent By Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: Appellant byFor Respondent: Respondent by Respondent by Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69A

been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 764/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.764/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Medical Association V Dcit, Pune Branch, S Exemption Circle, Pune. 992, Dr.Nitu Mandke, Ima House, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aaati2653M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.05.2021 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.02.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated

Aarti Jadhav Gaikwad, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 742/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against theorder dated 24.02.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Year(“AY”) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Commissioner of Income ... claim observing that even for A.Y.2018-19 the same has not been offered to Tax of stock option exercisedThis observation of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC is not correct. The facts on record reveal that the cost of acquisition of the impugned stocks has been included in Form 16 as perquisite

Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Sangamner vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2086/PUN/2025[2017 - 18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2086/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vs Ito, Ward-2 Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Ahmednagar Bharatnagar, Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605 Maharashtra Pan-Aaipq9677R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl

Section 250Section 271Section 271A

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 u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21.02.2025 which is arising out of order passed u/s 271 dated 10.09.2022. 2. Registry

Yeshwant Sahakari Sahkar Karkhana Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1997/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1997/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar V National E-Assessment Karkhana Ltd., S Centre. A/P.Chintamaninagar, Tal.Haveli, Dist. Pune-412110 Pan: Aaaty0164B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 19.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, Dated 29.09.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

30/09/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2011-12 dated 19.06.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section ... following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1997/PUN/2025 [A] “1. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned NFAC Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi, has erred in disallowing and adding back an amount of Rs.2,56,12,679/- on account of Excessive sugarcane

Rahul Arun Mandlik, Pune vs. ITO WD- 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 1984/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1984/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rahul Arun Mandlik, V The Income Tax Officer, Sr No.34/3/2, Kashi S Ward-5(2), Pune. Vishveshewar Apartment, Nt Yenpure Nagar, Dhankawadi, Pune – 411043. Pan: Bmbpm1461M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt.Sonal L Sonkavde – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 16.12.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

30/09/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2015-16 dated 16.12.2024 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section ... income of the Assessee at Rs.2,01,28,921/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] vide order dated 16.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on account of non-compliance. Ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] provided four opportunities to the Assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Pune, Akurdi vs. Shamsundar Kaliram Agarwal, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1428/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Shamsundar Kaliram Ward-8(1), Pune. S Agarwal, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Near Akurdi Railway Station, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Akurdi, Pune – 411044. Pan: Alzpa2906R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue(Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8(1), Pune), Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 154 R.W.S 250 Of The Act, 1961 Dated 28.03.2025 Emanating From The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147rSection 154Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue(Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8(1), Pune), against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 154 r.w.s 250 of the Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2025 emanating from the Order passed under section 250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income ... Returned income in this case was Rs.2,93,350/-. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). 5. Ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] passed an order for A.Y.2018-19 u/s.250 of the Act, on 29.05.2023, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the total income considering the peak credit

Manisha Dhananjay Holkar, Nashik vs. Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1204/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has passed the order without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions ... after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shall

Dreams Belle Vue, Pune vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1158/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1157 & 1158/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2014-15 Dreams Belle Vue, 3Rd Floor, City Mall, University Road, Ganeshkind, Maharashtra-411007, Pan: Aaaad9013B अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ito, Ward-2(1), Pune Vs. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Kishor B Phadke Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore 01-09-2025 30-09-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 23.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2016-17 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. There Is A Delay Of 383 & 375 Days Respectively In Filing Of These Appeals Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Along With Application Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or Deliberate But Has Occurred For The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

hands of the members of the AOP and hence, should not be taxed again in the hands of Appellant Company. 2. Learned CIT(NFAC), erred in outrightly dismissing the grounds/contentions raised by the assessee for lack of submissions made without addressing the grounds raised by the appellant, thereby violating ... requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has passed the order without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions

Dreams Belle Vue, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Pune

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

ITA 1157/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Dhennath Kal Bhairav Prasanna Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2608/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

ITA 2154/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 54BSection 63

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AYs”) 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Ground ... basis of assessment order. Ground 5- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case& in the law, the CIT-A NFAC was justified in deciding the appeal for 50% of the transaction value without considering decisions in the case of Spouse of 2 ITA No.2154/PUN/2024

Ch Marthanda Rao & Co, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

ITA 966/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 69A

filed by the assessee firm are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Ch Marthanda Rao and Co. Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, dated 24.01.2025, which in turn arises from the orders passed by the A.O for the A.Y 2014-15 and A.Y 2015-16 dated ... assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is erroneous in law as well as the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has just merely passed the order by setting

Ch Marthanda Rao and Co, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward - 14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 962/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 69A

Kalpana Veera Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 931/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25/11/2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

Mahesh Katragadda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 659/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, which 2 Mahesh Katragadda in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) r.w Section 263 of the Income

Sharanam Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1221/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 271ASection 69A

present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25/03/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 2 Sharanam Agarwal

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Varala Janga Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by

ITA 586/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'B' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 520/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 519 & 520/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited,…Appellant S-12, Durgapur Industrial Estate, J.P. Avenue, Durgapur-713212, W.B. [Pan:Aabcj9126E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147

519/KOL/2025 and 520/KOL/2025 are directed at the instance of assessee against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 24th March, 2022 passed for assessment year 2012-13. 1 ITA Nos. 519 & 520/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) JAS Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited ... Avenue, Durgapur-713212, W.B. (2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101, West Bengal (3) CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - ; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 519/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Section 143(3)Section 147