“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

Yash Infratech, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

ITA 513/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Yash Infratech V. The Acit A-78, Indira Nagar Range 1 Lucknow (U.P) Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabfy1381R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.06.2024, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of immovable ... assessing the total loss of the assessee at Rs.43,880/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the disallowance. 2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds

Virender Malik, Sagore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1810/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals 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.2020-21 dated 04.06.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section

Virender Malik, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1809/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

Rajhans Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mogalpura vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1773/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1773/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajhans Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S. Ward-2, Pune. 1, Mogalpura, Sangamner, Tal-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar – 422605. Pan: Aaaar3555J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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.2018-19, Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.154 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, Bhagur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1767/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal is 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.2017-18, dated 29.05.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the I.T.Act, dated ... grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in passing a ITA No.1767/PUN/2025 [A] cryptic and non-speaking order upholding the additions of Rs 1,34,39,289 made by Ld.NaFAC

The Ratnakar Bank Employees Co Op Credit Society Ltd Kolhapur, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1725/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(D)Section 80P(2)(a)

19/09/2025 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.2022-23 dated 04.07.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 143(3) read with ... Assessee are as under : ITA No.1725/PUN/2025 [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of denying deduction under section 80P in respect interest earned by the appellant society on deposits with

Late Mr Jagadish Deshpande Through Legal Heir Vrishali Deshpande, Pune vs. Dy/Assit Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1419/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(1)(a)Section 159Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals 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 16.04.2025 for the A.Y.2022-23. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Late Mr Jagadish Deshpande Through Legal Heir Vrishali Deshpande, Pune vs. Dy/Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1415/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(1)(a)Section 159Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

Golden Sparrow Media Works Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1402/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1402/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Golden Sparrow Media Works V Acit, Pvt. Ltd., S Circle-1(1), Pune. 884/9, Pinnacle House, Padmanabh Society, Erandwane, Pune City, Pune, Deccan Gymkhana S.O.-411004. Pan: Aafcg2237H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.03.2025 For The A.Y.2015-16 Emanating From The Order Under

Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that the ld.CIT

Manda Shantaram Garade, Talegaon Dabhade vs. Income Tax Officer 9(3), Akurdi

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

ITA 1343/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1343/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Manda Shantaram Garade, V The Assessing Officer, 66, Dhamane Gavthan, Near S Ward-9(3), Pune. Padmavati Mandir, Talegaon, Maharashtra – 410506. Pan: Bjcpg4762K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi(Virtual), Aadnya Bhandari(Present In Itat Pune Bench) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 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 Dated 26.03.2025 For The A.Y.2019-20 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

19/09/2025 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 dated 26.03.2025 for the A.Y.2019-20 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s

Quartzkraft LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 836/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(3)

Quartzkraft LLP (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 20.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.836/Hyd/2025 2 3. The brief

Varahala Sobha Rani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

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

ITA 789/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

Varahala Sobha Rani (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 07.04.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.789/Hyd/2025

Fehmida Begum, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 501/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, SR-DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Fehmida Begum (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 30.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.501/Hyd/2025 2 3. The assessee

Narender Reddy Madadi, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 446/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 694

Narender Reddy Madadi (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), both dated 07.10.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18 respectively. Since these appeals are related to the same assessee

Narender Reddy Madadi, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 445/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 694

Debasis Das, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 869/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmadebasis Das, Vs Ito, Ward-24 (1), Hooghly Motherland Nursing Home, Dankuni, Hooghly-712224 Pan No. :Akfpd 3436 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.P.Datta, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-2021, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Addition A Sum Of Rs. 44,95,500/- Is Bad. Illegal & Arbitrary In Nature. 2. That Without Considering The Actual Purchase Consideration Of The Landed Property, The Enhance Valuation Determined By Stamp Duty Valuer Is Mere A Guess Work & Such Enhanced Valuation Is Without Any Basis. Hence Such Enhancement Shall Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Considered The Alternative Remedy Which Are Available In Income Tax Act & Refer This Matter To The Dvo For Fresh Valuation. 4. That On The Basis Of Mere Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Actual Sale Consideration Shall Not Be The Sole Determination For Such Unlawful & Illegal Addition. Hence The Benefit Of Law Which Are Available & Prescribed In The Act Shall Be Taken Into Consideration At The Time Of Such Determination Of Such Income Tax Liability.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

Manjunatha G, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.03.2025 pertaining to assessment year 2020-2021, on the following grounds :- 1. That the addition

M/S. Hhp Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Hhp Hospital Private Ltd, Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 2406, Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700084 Pan No. Aabch 2642 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 04.01.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 313 Days, For Which Condonation Petition Is Filed. At The Time Of Hearing The Counsel Of The Assessee Explained The Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Ld. A.R Did Not Raise Any Objection In Condoning The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

Manjunatha G, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 04.01.2024 pertaining to assessment year 2012-2013. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation

Enhance Aesthetic & Cosmetic Studio Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1529/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Enhance Aesthetic & Cosmetic Studio Pvt. Ltd.………………….…….……Appellant 3C-12, Loudon Street, Kol- 17. [Pan: Aacce9208R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bishnu Kant Agrawal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 19, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 69

under: “Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Against Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act passed by Ld CIT(A) [NFAC] In the matter of ENHANCE AESTHETIC & COSMETIC STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED PAN: AACCE9280R A.Y. 2017-18 I Manoj Kumar Khanna Son of Jagatpal Khanna aged about

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1283/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Kanak Projects Limited, Vs Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co. 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. Aabck 1255 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 /09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.04.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 26.09.2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,11,89,350/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 09.03.2016 & Determined The Total Income At Rs.6,77,12,890/- By, Inter Alia, Making Additions Towards Disallowance Of Capital Expenditure For Rs.52,58,956/-, Rental Income Not Offered To Tax At Rs.8,77,945/-, Disallowance Of Excess Depreciation At Rs.3,75,000/- & Addition Towards Dividend Stripping Income U/S.94(7) Of The Act For Rs.1,636/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sujoy Sen, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

Manjunatha G, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07.04.2025 pertaining to assessment year 2013-2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed its return of income

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक