← 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

Shailesh Jaiswal, Balrampur vs. ITO-1, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 468/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.467 & 468/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Shailesh Jaiswal, Balrampur vs. ITO-1, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 467/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.467 & 468/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Narendra Kumar Khatri, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 5 (3), Patna

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

ITA 307/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Narendra Kumar Khatri, Prop. Sri Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Jewellery House Manisha Patna Complex, Bakerganj, Patna Pan/Gir No. Afxpk 7161 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujay Sen, Adv, Adv Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sujay Sen, Adv, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR

directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 20.2.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-2/10110/2016-17 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri Sujay Sen, ld. AR appeared ... time barred by 801 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 30.6..2025, stating that the assessee did not receive notices issued by NFAC between 2020 to 2022, as the registered email address (khatrinarendra 302@gmail.co) faced technical issues, and no hard copy of notices were also received

Sanjeev Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 264/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.264/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjeev Kumar...……………………………. …………………....Appellant Om Enterprises, Main Bazar, Bihta, Bihar- 801503. [Pan: Aswpk7096A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 56 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 250

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the NFAC under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 56 days in filing

Rubi Kumari, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Samastipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 263/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.263/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rubi Kumari….……………………………. …………………....Appellant C/O Maa Tarini Auro Services, Belsanditara, Bibhutipur, Samastipur, Bihar- 848207. [Pan: Akupk7000Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Ate That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Her Income From Petrol Pump. For The Assessment Year 2017- 18, The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,75,504/-. The Assessing Officer Found During The Assessment Proceedings That There Was Discrepancy In Disclosing Of Closing Stock Amounting To Rs.264871/- & The Assessee Had Unexplained Expenditure Of Rs.10,68,685/- & The Assessee Received Undisclosed Interest From Investments Of Rs.31,006/- & There Was

Section 250

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the NFAC under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case ate that the assessee is an individual and derived her income from

Dineshwar Prasad, Sarvadya Kamla Apartment, Boring Road vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna, Not Known

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

ITA 250/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.250/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dineshwar Prasad.………………………. …………………....Appellant Sarvadya Kamla Apartment, An Path, North S K Puri, Boring Road, Patna - 800013. [Pan: Acwpp8473C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Patna…..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.S.P Singh, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.02.2023 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 749 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 250Section 69

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the NFAC, Delhi under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 749 days in filing

Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Bhagalpur vs. PCIT-1, Patna

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

ITA 209/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.209/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sanjay Kr. Sharma…………………………. …………………....Appellant S/O Chidanand Sharma, Radha Rani Sinha Road, Adampur, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001... [Pan: Awips0681B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Bhagapur..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013–14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,60,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Obtaining Due Approval. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Passing Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Making An Addition Of Rs.20,87,245/- On Account Of Undisclosed Credits.

Section 147Section 148Section 250

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the NFAC under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income

Bipin Kumar, Vaishali vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Vaishali

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

ITA 463/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.463/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bipin Kumar….……………………………. …………………....Appellant Patepur Paura Kartaha Vaishali Bihar 844117, Bihar-844117. [Pan: Bnepk5098Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Vaishali.…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Shankar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued For Calling Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18. However, The Assessee Failed To Furnish His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year In Question Either U/S 139 On Or Before 31.03.2018 & Failed To Furnish Itr In Response To Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Later On, The Assessing Officer Got Information That The Assessee Has Deposited Total Cash Amounting To Rs.83,67,203/- In His Bank Account During The Demonetisation Period. As There Was No Compliance On Behalf Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Treated The Entire Cash

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the NFAC under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued

Abinash Jha, Patna vs. ITO Ward 4(5), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.220/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abinash Jha…....……………………………. …………………....Appellant Flat No.304, Gauri Shankar Complex, Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna Bihar- 800020. [Pan: Afppj3114G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025

Section 250

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the NFAC under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 4 days in filing

Thottippal Service Cooperative Bank, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(5), Thrissur

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 553/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Divya RavindranFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 23/05/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Vikas Oil Mill, Khairthal vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 721/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 721/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Vikas Oil Mill बनाम ITO, Ward 1(5), Alwar G-26/27, Ind. Area, Khairthal, Vs.301404, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABFV2322F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

which are illegal and against the facts on without providing any opportunity to the assessee before making the addition and the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in sustaining the same . 2. The Ld. Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances ... earlier year and the necessary evidences were submitted before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in sustaining the same . 3. The assessee reserves its right to addition, alter, modify, delete or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal

Noratan Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is technically dismissed

ITA 323/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarnoratan Lal Sharma, 35-A Nanupuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No.: Bcyps 6349P ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. Cit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

01/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 01/09/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 12.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Govind Jee, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1040/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 69A

assessment year 2017- 18 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice. 2 SHRI GOVIND JEE VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR ... invited the attention of the Bench that he had received a letter dated 08-02-22021 from the office of ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi that his application has been verified and it is found to be in order (PB-1). The relevant para of ld. CIT(A)’s order

Labh Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward No 2, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 723/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 723/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Labh Singh, Ito, C/O M.K.Aggarwal & बनाम Ward 2, Associates, Panchkula Vs. Sco 1,First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Didps5445F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh Rishab Gupta, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01-09-2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Dated 18.09.2023, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Background

For Appellant: Sh Rishab Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147

Pronouncement : 01-09-2025 आदेश/Order This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, dated 18.09.2023, for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Background The assessee is an agriculturist and an illiterate person residing in a remote village. The assessment ... assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 treating the cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A), NFAC, confirmed the addition for want of verifiable evidence. 3. Submissions of the Assessee 3.1 The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the cash deposits in the Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Anup Bansal, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 671/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Sh. Anoop Bansal, Ward-1(5), बनाम Motia Marvel, Ludhiana Barewal Road, Backside, Vs. Gurudev Hospital, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ahgpb5674C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Geetinder Mann, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 156Section 37Section 68

been filed by the assessee against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana erred in law, in deleting addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 360/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 358/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 356/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Income Tax Officer, Gangtok vs. Krishna Prasad, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee where he has asking that addition is required to be deleted stands also dismissed

ITA 1406/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok Krishna Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Palas Chattopadhay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 251(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT