← All Phrases

“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
43
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
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

Safali Mahendrakumar Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Anand

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

ITA 488/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalsafali Mahendrakumar Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ishwar Smruti, B/H. Gunatit Jyot Ward 4, Na, Shree Ram Vihar, Vallabh Anand Vidyanagar, Anand, Vv Nagar, Gujarat-388120 [Pan :Bohpp 5776 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 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 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act Dated 16.12.2019 Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Same As Valid.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69

been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 20.12.2023 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 ... liable to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the same as valid. 2. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.18,19,000/- u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. ” 3. In this

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Anil Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 403/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

Revenue against the separate orders of even dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) relating to the Assessment Years

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Anil Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

Revenue against the separate orders of even dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) relating to the Assessment Years

Munjal Auto Industries Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

ITA 271/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 80G

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 13.12.2024 for A.Y. 2018–19, arising from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section ... Rs.54,84,45,854/-. 5 3.5 The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The appeal was instituted on 19.04.2021 and later migrated to NFAC. Notices of hearing u/s 250 were issued on 18.11.2022 and 14.10.2024. However, no effective submissions were filed. The appeal was disposed of ex parte

Rhv Enterprise Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1441/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 29CSection 69CSection 80G

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 04.06.2025 passed for A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned ... NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by the learned ITO (Assessment Unit) of Rs. 25,00,000/- as bogus claim of deduction u/s 80GG and confirming addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act by ex-parte Order

Rhv Enterprise Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1440/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 29CSection 69CSection 80G

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 04.06.2025 passed for A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned ... NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by the learned ITO (Assessment Unit) of Rs. 25,00,000/- as bogus claim of deduction u/s 80GG and confirming addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act by ex-parte Order

The Harsiddhi Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

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

ITA 1765/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 13.08.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income

Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

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

ITA 358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.358/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Malegaon. Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur, Baglan, Nashik- 423204. Pan : Aadab1392C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Making Various Additions Other Than The Reasons For Which The Case Was Reopened, I.E. Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period, As He Was Satisfied With Explanation Offered During The Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, Other Additions Are Not Permissible As Per The Provisions Of Section 147, In View Of The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. 331 Itr 236 (Bom).

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Ninad Arun Diwakar, Nashik vs. ITO, ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1318/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 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], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 54F(4)

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], Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2025 for the A.Y.2022-23 emanating from the Assessment Order under section

Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari Chalamcharla, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1269/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1268 & 1269/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari V The Income Tax Officer, Chalamcharla, S. Ward-2, Panvel. F-203, Goodwill Garden Chs, Plot No.16/17, Sector 8, Kharghar, Maharashtra-410210 Pan: Atupc8616P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Respectively For A.Y.2022-23, Both Dated 21.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 14.03.2024 & Penalty Appeal Dated 13.09.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; respectively for A.Y.2022-23, both dated 21.03.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.144 of the I.T.Act, dated ... Principles of natural Justice, without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2) The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on the facts & in the circumstances of case by upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the income

Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari Chalamcharla, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1268/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1268 & 1269/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasavi Naga Rajeshwari V The Income Tax Officer, Chalamcharla, S. Ward-2, Panvel. F-203, Goodwill Garden Chs, Plot No.16/17, Sector 8, Kharghar, Maharashtra-410210 Pan: Atupc8616P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Respectively For A.Y.2022-23, Both Dated 21.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 14.03.2024 & Penalty Appeal Dated 13.09.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; respectively for A.Y.2022-23, both dated 21.03.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.144 of the I.T.Act, dated ... Principles of natural Justice, without affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2) The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on the facts & in the circumstances of case by upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the income

Gnanasekaran Manikandan, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 404/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B Yadagiri, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)

Vice President These 2 appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders, both dated 08/01/2025 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2017-18 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page

Gnanasekaran Manikandan, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 377/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B Yadagiri, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)

Vice President These 2 appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders, both dated 08/01/2025 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2017-18 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page

Subhash Hanumanthappa, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1325/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), and such appeal has been on 19-02-2020. In Form No. 35 filed by the assessee, it was stated that the date of service of the order was on 08-02-2020. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices fixing the case for hearing. However, there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 60 days without any petition for cond

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 226(3)

assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National 2 Subhash Hanumanthappa Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s. Sri Baidyanath Book

Kanaka Chalam Volety, California vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1312/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 275

assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National 2 Kanaka Chalam Volety Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed his return

Rahul Bhowmick (Legal Heir of Fullara Bhowmick, Deceased), Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Rahul Bhowmick (Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Fullara Bjhowmick Deceased), Burdwan S/O. Ratan Bhjowmick, Perbirhata, G Troad, Sripally, Burdwan-713013 Pan/Gir No.Afnpb 0338 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agrawal, Adv Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 5.2.2025 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Burdwan/10124.2019-20 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The only grievance raised in the grounds of appeal is that ... Deceased), S/O. Ratan Bhjowmick, Perbirhata, G Troad, Sripally, Burdwan- 713013 2. The Respondent : Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Burdwan 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //// By order Asst

Marias Institute of Management and Technology, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 48(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 467/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Due To Non- Compliance On The Various Dates Fixed For Hearing. Ultimately, The Ld. Cit(A) Upheld The Order Of The Ld. Ao By Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 147Section 250Section 69

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable public trust, filed its return of income

Partha Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1444/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-2019 Partha Sarkar, 57, Parnashree Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1), Pally, Parnashree, Kolkata Kolkata Pan/Gir No.Cghps 7512 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 24.2.2025 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017- 18/10231907 passed for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The appeal is time barred by 68 days. The assessee has filed ... Appellant : Partha Sarkar, 57, Parnashree Pally, Parnashree, Kolkata 2. The respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1), Kolkata 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT,Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //// By order Asst

ITO, Kolkata vs. Ajit Kumar Minda, Kolkata

ITA 2668/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaι.Τ.Α. No.2668/Kol/2024

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Manunatha G, Accountant

Mrs. Suganthi, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 2026/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2026/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 Smt. Suganthi, The Income Tax Officer, 1-128 Nadu Theru, Vs. Ward 2(1), Srinivasa Nallur Trichy. Maganthiramangalam, Trichy – 621 209. Pan: Jonps 9267D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Prasanna Venkatesan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Prasanna Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year