← 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

Markandeya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

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

ITA 148/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati, Jamnagar vs. AO, Aaykar Bhawan, Jamnagar

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

ITA 403/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati बनाम Income Tax Officer, /Vs. C-2/333 Gidc Shanker Tekri, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar, Aaykar Udyog Nagar, Udyog Nagar S.O. Bhawan, Jamnagar-361 005 Jamnagar-361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatpv770N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Buddh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 144Section 250

order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”,dated 16.08.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing

Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chhaniyara, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 280/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 280/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaniyara, Gaushala Plot, Kolki बनाम Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Rajkot, Kolki So, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360470 स्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Astpc9150G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.R. राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)",Dated 12.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 210Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F

order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short "Ld.CIT(A)",dated 12.03.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ... following grounds of appeal:- ITA No.280/RJT/2025 Α.Υ.16-17 Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chaniyara Page 2 “01. That the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Center(NFAC) has erred both in law and on facts while passing the order u/s 250 of the Income tax Act 1961 and therefore it requires

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

case’. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.186/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2 ... ground of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 187/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the penalty u/s.271

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

case’. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.186/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2 ... ground of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 187/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the penalty u/s.271

Vikas Agarwal, Silvassa vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

case’. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.186/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2 ... ground of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 187/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the penalty u/s.271

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

case’. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.186/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2 ... ground of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 187/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the penalty u/s.271

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

case’. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.186/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2 ... ground of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 187/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the penalty u/s.271

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

case’. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.186/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2 ... ground of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 187/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the penalty u/s.271

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Ward Silvassa, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

case’. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.186/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2 ... ground of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 187/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the penalty u/s.271

Vikas Agarwal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. ITO, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

case’. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.186/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.2 ... ground of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 187/SRT/2025 (AY 2014-15) is as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the penalty u/s.271

Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward3(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 138/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.138/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 101-102, Harihari Society, Katargam Ward – 3(2)(4), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpp0940K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

facts, in dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.24,53,007/- and hence Your Appellant PRAYS that the Order of NFAC be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of NFAC to dispose off the appeal afresh after giving the reasonable opportunity of being

The Pursottam Farmers Co.Op. Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ciracle-2(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 523/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.499/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Circle – 2(1)(1), Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Surat Ltd., Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.523/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Vs. Dcit, Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Surat Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ITA No.499 & 523/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 The Pursottam Farmers Co-op Cotton Gnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as under

Dy. Commissoner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co Op Cotton Grnning and Pressing Society Ltd, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.499/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Circle – 2(1)(1), Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Surat Ltd., Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.523/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Pursottam Farmers Co-Op. Vs. Dcit, Cotton Grnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Jahangirpura Gin., Jahangirpura, Surat Rander – 395009, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ITA No.499 & 523/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 The Pursottam Farmers Co-op Cotton Gnning & Pressing Soc. Ltd. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as under

Abbobacker Siddieque, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward 1& Tps, Tirur

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

ITA 537/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aboobacker Siddieque .......... Appellant Kundupuzhakkal House, Cherur Post Malappuram 676304 [Pan: Dzaps6853P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Tirur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Shaji Paulose, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu, S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu, S., Sr. DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)Section 69C

made addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal ... present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under

Jihas Abduljaleel, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 523/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jihas Abduljaleel .......... Appellant Shihas Manzil, Kannamkode, Kummil Post, Kollam [Pan: Blypa6333C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 23.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That That Appellant Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Livestock. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Therefore, The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 148 & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act), Which Remained Uncomplied With By The Appellant. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 23.05.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that that appellant is an individual, engaged in the business of livestock

Dilip Kumar Jain, Mandideep vs. Income Tax Officer, Raisen

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 9/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

under: (i) I.T.A. No. 9/Ind/2025 is a quantum-appeal directed against order of first appeal dated 05.10.2021 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 passed by ITO, Raisen [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income

Narmada Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit, Khandwa vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Khandwa

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 81/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148

RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.11.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 01.03.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s

Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, Tt Nagar vs. CPC Bangalore, Hobli

Appeal is allowed

ITA 62/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Dilip Kumar Jain, Mandideep vs. Income Tax Officer, Raisen

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 29/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

under: (i) I.T.A. No. 9/Ind/2025 is a quantum-appeal directed against order of first appeal dated 05.10.2021 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 passed by ITO, Raisen [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income