“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

Ankit Kumar Singhania, Shakti vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 477/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.477/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ankit Kumar Singhania, Village Post-Baradwar Basti, Ward No.10, Dharamshal Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa-495 687 Pan: Bypps9579C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Ballarpur ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 250

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

Jyotshna Bhikhubhai Vadher, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Porbandar

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

ITA 36/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.36/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyotshna Bhikhubhai Vadher The Ito, Ward-2(4) बनाम Madhav Park Porbandar. Rokadiya Hanuman Road Vs. Khapat, Porbandar-360575 (Guj) Pan : Aempv 5898M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee are as follows. Jyotshna Bhikubhai Vadher ITA No. 36 /RJT/2025 2 1.The order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 20.11.2024 is bad in law as well as on the facts because Ld. CIT(A) without considering

Pannaben Gunvanbhai Desai L/H of Late Gunvanrai Vasanji Desai, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Pannaben Gunvanvai Desai, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Late Gunvanrai Vasanji Ward – 3, Desai, Vapi 01-Desai Fakliyu, Pardi – Parners – Valsad - 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypd7934Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2025

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. LD. CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to upheld AO’s reopening of assessment u/s 147 and issue of a notice u/s 148 on date 27/03/2019 ignoring ... notice is not valid in law on account of notices’s death on date 03/1/2025. ITA No.133/SRT/2025/AY.2012-13 Pannaben Gunvanbhai Desai 2. LD. CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to upheld AO’s reopening as well as subsequent assessment proceedings valid in law ignoring the fact

Hasmukhbhai Vallabhbhai Rakholiya, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Surat

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

ITA 1229/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1229/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukhbhai Vallabhbhai Assistant Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ Rakholiya Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat, Aayakar Vs. Plot No. A/2/5,Road No.9 Bhawan, Surat-395 002 Sachin Udhyognagar Sahakari Mandali Hojiwala Industrial Estate, Sachin, Surat-394 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abmpr 0312 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kalarickal Sukumaran Vinod, Ernakulam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi

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

ITA 573/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalarickal Sukumaran Vinod .......... Appellant 1A Tanzeel Apartment, Kumranasan Nagar\ Kadavanthara, Ernakulam 682020 [Pan: Aeapv6534L] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 13.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Stated To Be An Ex-Sportsman. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 29.03.2018 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At Total Income Of Rs. 38,75,280/-. While Doing So

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 13.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual stated to be an ex-sportsman. The return of income ... Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset I find that the NFAC passed a very cryptic order without taking into consideration the submissions made by the appellant on factual aspects as well legal position governing the addition. Therefore

Pavana Manuel Xavier, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 2(3), Kochi

ITA 572/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

Date of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 05.02.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income ... appeal within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. At the outset, I find that the NFAC issued notices through ITBA portal, with remained uncomplied with. In my considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice

Varghese Varghese, Trivandrum vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 436/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Varghese Varghese .......... Appellant Purackal House, Pangapara P.O., Kariyavattom, Thiruvananthapuram. [Pan: Abvpv 8976 E] Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, .......... Respondent Circle-1(2), Trivandrum. Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

Before the AO, the appellant had not provided any information regarding the source of cash deposits, however, during course of appellate proceedings before the NFAC, the appellant filed an explanation stating that the said cash deposits were made out of gold loan received in cash

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 1 अपीलीय अधिकरण, इन्दौर न्यायपीठ, इन्दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Ayush Abhay Jain, Khandwa vs. Ward 1 Khandwa, Khandwa

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 641/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Biyani, A.M.:** Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 12.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 02.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-Ward-1, Khandwa ["AO"] u/s 144 of Income

Badri Narain Nathu Lal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(3), Jaipur

ITA 123/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 154Section 250Section 32

Kumar, Judicial Member This order is to dispose of the appeal filed by the assessee challenging order dated 28.11.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, relating to the assessment year 2021-22. 2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while taking into

Kamla Verma, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(2)(2), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamla Verma V. The Income Tax Officer 185/7, Vijay Nagar Ward 1(2)(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Akcpv2921K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 271ASection 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order, dated 27.02.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a widow, retired from the Military Engineer Services (MES), Ministry of Defence ... section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting addition to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and sustaining the addition to the tune

Vimal Kumar Banka, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against order dated 24.11.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that as per the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee had not filed the return of income ... read with sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on merits as well as on the issue of validity of reassessment proceedings. 4.0 Now, the assessee

Darshana Dave, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(5), Kanpur, DCIT, CPC

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 189/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Darshana Dave V. The Ito 14/75, Civil Lines Ward 1(3)(5) Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Ahepd2111L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 07.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 14.09.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.7,91,625/-, Claiming Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs.8,69,268/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Of The Assessee Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) & Passed An Order Dated 11.01.2019, Computing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.34,46,712/-, Thereby Raising A Demand Of Rs.9,59,106/- As Against The Refund Of Rs.39,250/- Computed By The Assessee. Against This Order, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80C

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against order dated 07.02.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 14.09.2017, declaring ... filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act was rejected by the CPC. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by holding that, on facts, the insurance policy receipts were not exempt under section

Mridul Jain HUF, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Kanpur, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 401/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Mridul Jain Huf V. The Income Tax Officer 1285, Y Block Ward 1(3)(1) Kidwai Nagar Kanpur Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aahhm1605A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R

Section 92

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order, dated 17.10.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2.0 During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) invited my attention to assessee’s application dated

Ishrat Beg, Sitapur vs. ITO, Sitapur

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

ITA 392/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ishrat Beg V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Akhtar Beg Sitapur Katra Astal, Laharpur Sitapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoypb5773P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154BSection 44A

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order, dated 12.10.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income for the year under consideration ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC, 270A, 271A and 271B of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC and placed reliance on the order of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012-13. However, the appeal

Hari Singh Chauhan, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 3(5), Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order, dated 12.09.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a farmer and the assessee has never filed return of income ... also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on merits. 2.3 Now, the Assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging impugned order of the NFAC by raising

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The ITO, Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate orders, both dated 18.10.2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. 2.0 Both these appeals filed by the assessee are having identical issues. Therefore, they were taken up for hearing ... income returned by the assessee. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by relying on certain judicial precedents. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging impugned orders

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd, Kakhimpur Kheri vs. The ITO, Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd, Baghauli, Hardoi vs. The ITO, Range-3(2), Hardoi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 219/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate orders, both dated 20.07.2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2.0 Both these appeals filed by the assessee are having identical issues. Therefore, they were taken up for hearing ... relying on certain judicial precedents. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by relying on certain judicial precedents. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging impugned orders

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Baghauli, Hardoi vs. The ITO Range-3(3), Hardoi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)