← 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

Indian Co-Operative Network for Women Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Nungambakkam

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

ITA 1635/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1633 To 1636/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Indian Co-Operative Network For Ito, Women Limited Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(2), No. 55, Bheemasena Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaai-4488-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

BENCH : These four appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 vide order dated 12.06.2024 and for the assessment year 2018-19 vide order dated 28.08.2024. Since facts are identical ... Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred separate appeals for all the four A.Ys. before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 8. On perusal of the orders of the ld.CIT(A), we note that the assessee had not participated in the appellate proceedings inspite of providing various opportunities

Indian Co-Operative Network for Women Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Nungambakkam

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

ITA 1634/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1633 To 1636/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Indian Co-Operative Network For Ito, Women Limited Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(2), No. 55, Bheemasena Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaai-4488-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

BENCH : These four appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 vide order dated 12.06.2024 and for the assessment year 2018-19 vide order dated 28.08.2024. Since facts are identical ... Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred separate appeals for all the four A.Ys. before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 8. On perusal of the orders of the ld.CIT(A), we note that the assessee had not participated in the appellate proceedings inspite of providing various opportunities

Indian Co-Operative Network for Women Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 1(2), Nungambakkam

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

ITA 1633/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1633 To 1636/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Indian Co-Operative Network For Ito, Women Limited Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(2), No. 55, Bheemasena Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaai-4488-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

BENCH : These four appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 vide order dated 12.06.2024 and for the assessment year 2018-19 vide order dated 28.08.2024. Since facts are identical ... Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred separate appeals for all the four A.Ys. before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 8. On perusal of the orders of the ld.CIT(A), we note that the assessee had not participated in the appellate proceedings inspite of providing various opportunities

Hotel Shevaroys Pvt Ltd, Salem vs. ITO TDS Ward, Salem

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

ITA 1605/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1604 & 1605/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18(2Nd Quarter & 3Rd Quarter) Hotel Shevaroys Pvt Ltd, Income Tax Officer, No.1, Hospital Road, Vs. Tds Ward, Yercaud Salem. Salem– 636 601. [Pan:Aaach-5916-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A.Nikitha, Advocate For Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. A.Nikitha, Advocate for Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 194ASection 201(1)

RAGHUNATHA, AM : These two appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide separate orders dated 19.03.2025. 2. Brief facts are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged ... dated 06.10.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. Before the ld.CIT(A), there is a delay of 582 days in filing the appeal by the assessee on 11.05.2019 against the order u/s.201(1)/201

Hotel Shevaroys Pvt Ltd, Salem vs. ITO, TDS Ward, Salem

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

ITA 1604/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1604 & 1605/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18(2Nd Quarter & 3Rd Quarter) Hotel Shevaroys Pvt Ltd, Income Tax Officer, No.1, Hospital Road, Vs. Tds Ward, Yercaud Salem. Salem– 636 601. [Pan:Aaach-5916-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A.Nikitha, Advocate For Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. A.Nikitha, Advocate for Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 194ASection 201(1)

RAGHUNATHA, AM : These two appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide separate orders dated 19.03.2025. 2. Brief facts are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged ... dated 06.10.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. Before the ld.CIT(A), there is a delay of 582 days in filing the appeal by the assessee on 11.05.2019 against the order u/s.201(1)/201

M/S. Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

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

ITA 1555/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1555/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Alternative For India Development, Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Vgn Nagar, Vs. Exemption Ward -4, Iyyappanthangal, Chennai. Kattupakkam Post, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aaata-4184-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K.Viswa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. K.Viswa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)

RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19, vide order dated 08.04.2025. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust dedicated ... amounts of Rs.1,28,88,754/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. At the outset, the ld.CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 874 days in appeal filed by the assessee

Palanisamy Anand, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1528/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1528/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Palanisamy Anand, Income Tax Officer, D.No.2, Mariamman Kovil Street, Vs. Ward -1(6), Seshanchavadi, Valappadi Salem. Salem– 636 111. [Pan:Amcpa-1644-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 69

RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 25.02.2025. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 27 days ... dated 30.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi. 5. At the outset, the ld.CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 140 days in appeal filed by the assessee on 16.11.2023 against the order

Amit Rajendra Gupta, Mumbai vs. Ward 29(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the matter to the file of the AO to

ITA 4793/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 144Section 148Section 250

present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)"] u/s.250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year

Sangeetaben Bharatkumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4668/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantms Suchitra Kamblesangeeta Bharatkumar Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), 78-80 Gora Gandhi Building, Mumbai. C.P, Tank Road, Mumbai-400004. [Pan :Aftpm1095 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya, Ar Respondent By: Shri Vivek Perampura, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal: 01. That the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred both in law and on facts while dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of limitation, and therefore the order passed ... NFAC required to be quashed. AY 2020-21 2 02. That the appellant has categorically given E-mail ID in Form No. 35 bharatmehtanote2@gmail.com for issue of notices, however the notices issued on E-mail ID tpawar529@gmail.com and passed an ex- parte order is against the facts on record

Siddhivinayak Steels, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 3138/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantms Suchitra Kamblesiddhivinayak Steels, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sa-36, Lake City Mall, Ward-3(3), Near Big Bazar, Thane. Kapurbawdi, Thane-400608. [Pan :Aaofs7932 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR

appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of selling

Tapas Chaturvedi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 4509/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Vijay Joshi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(b)

DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Joshi, Vs CIT(A), NFAC, A/702, Gokul Saphier, Delhi. Gokul Township, Next to Muljibhai Mehta School, Palghar Bolinji, Maharashtra – 401303, PAN: ABVPJ3676K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ajay ... ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.11.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeal No.NFAC/2013-14/10270944 arising out of the appeal

Hills Trade-Rk(Jv), Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 62(4), Delhi

ITA 478/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

1 Hills Trade IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Nafees Ahmad, Gonda vs. ITO Ward-52(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4046/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhasstt. Year : 2017-18 Nafees Ahmad, Vs. Ito-52(1), New Delhi/ Nfac, 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, Delhi Gonda, Uttar Pradesh-271001 (Pan: Aiopa0771A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Prashant Kumar Verma, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.11.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Argued By The Ld. Ar Is Relating To Challenging The Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Dated 27.3.2021 Issued By The Ito, Ward- 52(1), Delhi Is Without Jurisdiction & Is Void Ab Initio & Consequently The Reassessment Is Also Void Ab Initio. 2. Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Records. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Original Return Of Income For The Ay 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,60,450/-. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs. 3,12,480/-. As Per The Financial Transactions Reported In The Its, Assessee Has Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 18,29,000/- With Indian Overseas Bank At Gonda

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Kumar Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

RIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Nafees Ahmad, VS. ITO-52(1), New Delhi/ NFAC, 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, Delhi Gonda, Uttar Pradesh-271001 (PAN: AIOPA0771A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Prashant Kumar Verma, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Manoj Kumar ... Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 18.11.2024 pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. The solitary issue argued by the Ld. AR is relating to challenging the notice

Rupam Dubey, Bijnor vs. ITO, Bijnor

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhasstt. Year : 2018-19 Rupam Dubey, Vs. Ito-3(3), Bijnor-1, Hn 378, Ram Bagh Colony, Bijnor, Up Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aqupd8074F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Jyoti Kumar Agarwal, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19 On The Solitary Issue Of Addition Of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 2. Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Records. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Ao In The Assessment Proceedings Noted That There Was Information In The Insight Portal That Large Amount Of Cash Was Deposited In The Assessee’S Saving Bank Account & The Case Was Reopened U/S. 147 By Issuance Of Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 30.3.2022. The Ao Also Noted That The Assessee Filed Original Return Of Income On 01.09.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 7,40,370/- & In Response To Notice U/S. 148 On 16.1.2023 Declaring The Same

For Appellant: Sh. Jyoti Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 18.03.2025 pertaining to assessment year 2018-19 on the solitary issue of addition of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 2. Heard both the sides

Jaivir, Sonepat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Sonepat

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3275/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2012-13 Jaivir, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sonipat, H.No. 1399, Sector-23, Haryana Sonipat, Haryana (Pan: Amgmpj7567H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Date of hearing : 03.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 12.09.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.05.2024 relating to assessment year 2012-13 on as many as 6 grounds, however, he has argued only the following legal ground

The Sai Man Education Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3271/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115Section 115BSection 68

Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. Assessee has raised as many as 5 grounds, but only argued the ground relating to sustaining the of Rs.26

Krishna Infratec, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3267/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No.3267/Del/2025 (A.Y 2018-19) Krishna Infratec, Sadipur Vs. Acit Road Gulaothi, Bulandshahr Circle – 2 (1) (1) Uttar Pradesh Gautam Ghaziabad Budh Nagar Pan No. Aamfk5943N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Abhishek Jain, Ca Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, Advocate Revenue By Sh. Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

Section 133Section 143Section 68o

1 Krishna Infratech Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Venkateswarlu Chandu, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3119/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Venkateswarlu Chandu, Vs. Dcit, Cc-43(1), B-905, Best Paradise, Plot No. 4, New Delhi Bhartiya Cghs, Sector-19, Dwarka, Delhi – 110 075 (Pan: Acdpc4984A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca & Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Relating To Sustaining Of Addition Of Rs. 9,99,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69C Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Nil. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Submitted That He Earned An Agriculture Income Of Rs. 23,10,000/- & This Receipt Was Deposited In Cash To Pay For The Bills Of Credit Care In His Bank Located In Delhi. On Perusal Of The Submissions Filed By The Assessee It Was Observed By The Ao That The Assessee Earned Agriculture Income In Cash Nellipudi Village, Andhra Pradesh. In Response To Requisite Notices, Ao Noted

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Jain, CA & Sh. Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 69C

Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. The solitary issue raised in this appeal is relating to sustaining of addition of Rs. 9,99,000/- made

Urmila Devi, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2) (1) Gzb., Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2768/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Urmila Devi, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(1), R-2/44, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Pan: Agcpd5389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saif Ali, Adv. (Through Vc) & Shri Pranav Menon, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Order Dated 12.03.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On The Following Grounds:- 1. That The Order U/S. 250 Passed By The Cit(A) Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Passing Order U/S. 250 With Pre- Conceived Motion & Without Appreciating Material On Records. 3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Exemption Amounting To Rs. 2442775/- Claimed U/S. 54 Of The Act In Respect Of Ltcg For Investment On The Construction Of The House. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Report Of The Valuer In Support Of The Construction Of The House For Claim Of Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Saif Ali, Adv. (Through VC) &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 148A(1)(d)Section 250Section 54

Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi order dated 12.03.2025 relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the following grounds:- 1. That the order u/s. 250 passed