“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

Narasimha Rao Jammigumpula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Narasaraopet

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, माननीय

Moturu Chandra Sekhara Rao, Usa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 474/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of The Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Relevant Contents Are Scanned & Pasted Herein Below:

Section 147Section 249(4)

raised at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation of the assessee with respect to the condonation 5 Moturu Chandra Sekhara Rao vs. ITO of delay in filing ... appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC as the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause ie., the appellant is not aware of the notices issued and orders passed. The appellant got the knowledge of the same only when penalty notices were physically received. The Ld. AR also

Income Tax Officer, Infinity Towers, Sankarmatham Road vs. Ammaji Chennupati, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 441/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.08.2024, which in turn arises 2 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under

Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Blackburn Fuels Private Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 293/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 68

present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.05.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) 2 Blackburn Fuels Private Limited under Section ... assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous in law and to the facts of the case. 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that Assessing

Antar Singh Mewada, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

ITA 416/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiantar Singh Mewada, Cit(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, Nfac, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi Po Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (Pan:Bompm3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Antar Singh Mewada, CIT(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, NFAC, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi PO Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (PAN:BOMPM3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by Shri Gagan Tiwari, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

single officer and thus we are in the view that the assessee had furnished the requisite information's and the NFAC has completed the assessment after considering all the aspects and facts of the case, therefore the order passed by the learned AO cannot be termed as erroneous as alleged ... Copy of ITR filed in response of Notice u/s 148 15 7. Copies of various Notices issued u/s 142/143 issued by | 16-27 NFAC during the Faceless Assessment proceedings. 8. Copies of various Replies made with NFAC during the 28-38 Faceless Assessment proceedings 9. Affidavit of the Assessee

Pradeep Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 1522/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "A" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Deepika Garg, E-392, Phase-VI, Focal Point, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ludhiana, Jao, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5)

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 96/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM Deepika Garg E-392, Phase-VI Focal Point, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACAPG4693H अपीलार्थी/Appellant आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 96/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 बनाम The ITO Ward-1(5), Ludhiana प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख / D

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 68

/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dt. 09/01/2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Satyapal Singh Chauhan HUF, Ambala Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 Ambala, Income Tax Office, Ambala

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:- "1. That The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Exercising Revisionary Powers U./S 263. 2. That The Ld. Pcit Has Erred In Law & Facts In Holding That The Case Is Covered Under Clause (1) Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263(1). 3. That Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or To Substitute The Above Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case." 2. The Facts, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Huf Have Been Filing The Returns Year After Year Disclosing Agricultural Income Besides Normal Rental Income. Agricultural Income Disclosed In The Previous Years & In The Year Under Consideration Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ “बी”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID

Rotomag Motors & Controls (P) Ltd., Anand vs. The Dy.CIT, Anand Circle, Anand

Appeal is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

RDER PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter

Renu Vinod Kaushal, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1949/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

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 11.09.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 in the proceedings under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income

Mahatma Gandhi Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt Udgir, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1 -Latur, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.670 & 671/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mahatma Gandhi Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt Udgir, Bidar Road, Near Mahatma Gandhi Udyan, Udgir, Latur-413517 Pan: Aabam7649H अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ito, Ward-1, Latur Vs. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Miss Sailee Gujarathi (Virtual) Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 02-07-2025 09-09-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 10.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders both dated 10.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Years (“AYs”) 2018-19 and 2020-21. Since common issued are involved, both the appeals were heard together ... which has been disallowed by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for the reasons reproduced above. We find that the impugned issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by catena of decisions of various judicial forums including Jurisdictional Pune Tribunal wherein

Mahatma Gandhi Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt Udgir, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1 -Latur, Latur

ITA 670/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Miss Sailee Gujarathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders both dated 10.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Years (“AYs”) 2018-19 and 2020-21. Since common issued are involved, both the appeals were heard together

Mr. Vijaykumar Pramanad Sethi, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 464/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

submission before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in response to the notices issued by him despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. On merits, he upheld the order of the Ld. AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was not intentional. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in position to substantiate its claim by filing the requisite documentary evidence. He therefore

Mr. Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1803/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1803/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Narayan Chunilal Jaiswal, V The Income Tax Officer, Ayodhya Nagar, S Ward-2(1), Jalgaon. Varangaon-425307. Pan: Acwpj1153H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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.2017-18 Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Ao & Confirmed By The Id. Cit(A). Nfac, Is Bad & Void Ab Initio & Also Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 144Section 250

09/09/2025 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.2017-18 dated 22.01.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 144 of the Income ... appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : “The assessment order passed by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A). NFAC, is bad and void ab initio and also against the principles of natural justice. ITA No.1803/PUN/2025 [A] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance

Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, Satana vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1322/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yugal Madhukar Khairnar, V The Income Tax Officer, Dongrej Virgaon, Satana, S Ward-1, Malegaon. Dist-Nashik, Nashik – 423301. Pan: Anmpk4805E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S. Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule - Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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.2012-13 Dated 24.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 22,94,000/-

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1257/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1257/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pathsanstha Limited, S Ward-1, Kolhapur. 2832B Ward Yamula Devalaya Najik Karveer, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaqas6598A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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 13.11.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

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 13.11.2024 for the A.Y.2018-19 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 147 r.w.s

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

BENCH: The above 3 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 22.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19. While ITA No.1241/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeal on account of delay ... sustaining the addition of Rs.8,84,97,504/- made by the Assessing Officer, ITA No.1242/PUN/2025 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68