“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

Kartavya Consultants Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shrii P.K.Mishra & Shri Himanshu Jena &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.DR

Section 145Section 35

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.02.2025 for the assessment year 2021-2022. 2. At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 36 days. In this

Suresh Kumar Divakar, Sambalpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

ITA 145/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 269SSection 271D

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 03/02/2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10125205 for the assessment year 2017-2018 confirming the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act for the violation

Dharmendrasinh Harisinh Raj, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 304/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmendrasinh Harisinh Raj Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), बनाम/ 153, Chakla Faliyu, Village- Bharuch, Income Tax Office, Hari Vs. Sayakha, Taluka-Vagar, Kunj, Station Road, Bharuch-356 Bharuch-392 140 069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bifpr 8389 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 23.02.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed ... short, ‘AO’) u/s 144 of the Act dated 14.11.2019. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in deciding appeal ex- parte even though no notices were served on the appellant in the designated email stated

Dewas Jila Network of Pipul Living With H I V Aids Society, Dewas vs. Additional/Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissionner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 146/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 272A(2)(e)

Assessment Year:2014-15 Dewas Jila Network of Pipul Living with HIV Aids Society, 08, Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Dewas (Assessee/Appellant) National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi बनाम / Vs. (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAAAD7487P Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpane, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date

Lal Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 615/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal By Challenging Order Dated 24.02.2025, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Assailing The Assessment Order Dated 08.05.2023, Relating To The Assessment Year 2016-17, Came To Be Disposed Of & The Matter Was Restored To The Files Of The Assessing Officer For Decision Afresh, After Providing Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 251

vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER . Assessee-appellant is before this Appellate Tribunal by challenging order dated 24.02.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, whereby his appeal assailing the assessment order dated 08.05.2023, relating to the assessment year 2016-17, came to be disposed of, and the matter

Heda Marbles Private Limited, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh

ITA 185/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 147

Date of Pronouncement: 25/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER . Assessee-appellant has challenged order dated 17.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2009-10, as his appeal challenging assessment order dated 27.12.2016, passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter ... aware of the directions so already issued. 9. We are of the view that in the given situation, Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi should have also taken into consideration, the above mentioned directions issued as regards the assessment year 2010-11, for effective adjudication of the identical issue, which arose

Pooran Mal Yadav, Jaaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1364/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarpooran Mal Yadav, Dhani Bihari Wala, Vpo Ghansipura, Shahpura, Jaipur 303 103 Pan No. Aavpy 8763H ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

Date of pronouncement : 25/09/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 20.09.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Cdc Gola Comitte Phardan, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO Range-3(4), Lakghimpur Kheri

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 55/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Cdc Gola Comitte Phardan V. The Income Tax Officer Ayyubi Chamber Range 3(4) Raniganj Lakhimpur Kheri-1 Lakhimpur Kheri (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaalc0542R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 5Section 6Section 80P

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.12.2023, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is Sugar Cane Development Council constituted by Cane Commissioner under section ... assessee at Rs.32,92,524/- as against Nil income declared by the assessee. 2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. The submission of the assessee before the NFAC was that the assessee was a Corporate Body and was part of U.P. State Cane Department. It was further

Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.427/LKW/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes while CO No

ITA 427/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur, U.P. 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.26/Lkw/2024 In A.Y. 2017-18 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 10.05.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Passed On 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Proceedings Made U/S 147 Is Not In Accordance With Law. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Deposited During The F.Y.2016-17 Without Appreciating That The Ao Has 1 Co No.26/Lkw/2024 Ajay Kumar Gupta A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

CHOUDHARY, A.M.: [ This Appeal and Cross Objection have been filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively, against the orders of the ld. CIT, NFAC passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 10.05.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee against

Vaibhav Agarwal, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 345/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vaibhav Agarwal V. The Income Tax Officer 1, Industrial Estate Ward 2(2)()1) Vijay Nagar Kanpur Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arjpa5126D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated25.09.2023, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income for the year under consideration ... 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order

Ghanshyam Arjanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 829/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 57

/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 23-02- 2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2020-21. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1.The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Fashions Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 758/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Narendra Prasad Sinhaita Nos. 757 & 758/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R

Section 111Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: These two appeals filed are against the order dated 10- 02-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No. 757/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 “1." Whether

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Fashions Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 757/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Narendra Prasad Sinhaita Nos. 757 & 758/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R

Section 111Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Deputy Commissioner Of Techno Industries, Vs. Income Tax, Plot No.613, Phase Iv Gidc, Circle 3(1)(1), Vatva, Ahmedabad-382245. Ahmedabad. [Pan :Aacft1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 22.01.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Soham Pulin Purohit, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1372/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblesoham Pulin Purohit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. A/92, Rivera Heights, Ward-3(3)(5), Opp. Sharnam-10, Ahmedabad. C.G Road, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Gujarat. [Pan :Bxspp5288 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N Divatia, With Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ami Rameshchandra Mehta (Alias Ami Deepak Zala), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1331/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblesmt. Ami Rameshchandra Mehta Income Tax Officer, Vs. (Alias Ami Deepak Zala), Ward-5(2)(2), 504 Samedh, Ahmedabad. Nr. Associate Petrol Pump, C.G Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Gujarat. [Pan :Akppm9230 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bhavik Khandediya, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik Khandediya, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR

relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. Because the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in law as well on facts and circumstances of the case while passing an ex-parte Appellate Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– order, thereby ... basic fundamental principle of Natural Justice- "AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM ie. no one should be condemned unheard. 2. Because the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law while dismissing the appeal of the appellant in Limine without appreciating the fact that show-cause notice dated 07.11.2019 issue

Kartik Clothing & Fabrics Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 119/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 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 19.11.2024 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts

Jaydev Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1003/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1003/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaydev Developers The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 16, 4Th Floor Ward-4(2)(1) V/S. Agarwal Mall Ahmedabad – 380 015 Opp. Bhagwat Vidyapith S.G. Highway Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaifj 1174 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

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 10/10/2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken following grounds

Dande Madhusudan Jaikrishana HUF, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nashik

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

ITA 631/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C.D. UpasaniFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 30.11.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 400 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee ... number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the addition of Rs.32,59,830/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in the GP rate of Rs.5,61,330/- and unexplained

Moraya Residency B Wing, Pune, Maharashtra vs. The ITO Ward 6(1), Pune, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1831/PUN/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1831/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Moraya Residency B Wing, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.56/6, Opp. Samarth S Ward-6(1), Pune. Nagar, Near Mumbai Bengaluru Bypass, Vadgaon Budruk, Pune – 411041. Pan: Aaham9853D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar & Shri Kiran Sanmane – Ars Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 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 A.Y.2024-25 Dated 09.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

25/09/2025 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 A.Y.2024-25 dated 09.05.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section