“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel vs. Aswad Jaidas Patil, Pezari Post Poynad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 28.12.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2012-13. For the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These ... expenses Rs.15,92,941/- c) Unsecured loans u/s 68 Rs.54,00,000/- d) Unverifiable expenses Rs.6,75,285/- 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee uploaded the written submissions on various dates. The assessee thereafter filed certain additional evidences which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer

Aswad Jaidas Patil, Raigad vs. Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2580/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle A/P Ranjangaon Khurd, Vs. Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar – 413719 Pan: Aaeas0636H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatray Dhavle Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray DhavleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(19)Section 40A(2)

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.10.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale ... during the year. 4. So far as the issue relating to excess cane price paid to the members is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1682/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak and Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assesse filed its revised return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: Rs.72,02,700/-]” 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition on the ground that the Tribunal has quashed the re-assessment proceedings. The relevant part of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC at para 5 of the order reads

Padmavathi Morthala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 704/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sai KumarFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

above appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 21.01.2025 of the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2021-2022. 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before

Dhanalaxmi & Company, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 489/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: MS. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

above appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 17.12.2024 of the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal before

Late Byrraju Somaraju Rep by Lr Byrraju Pratap Raju, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1020/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50C

Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09/08/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both ... derabad and further before the Hon'ble High Court for Telangana ac Hyderabad. 2. There was no any appeal before the CITIA), NFAC, Delhi directly with my PAN: ECXPB6437D. 3. There were 2 (Two) assessment orders passed by ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad for Asst year 2011-12 jointly against

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 425/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

above appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order dated 14.03.2023 of the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before

Kiwi Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 782/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.782/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kiwi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.…………………..……..…………………....Appellant 16 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 8Th Floor, Kol-13. [Pan: Aaeck1653Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Niraj Mangla, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac Dated 07.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Which Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2013–14 Declaring A Total Income Nil. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act Based On Information That The Assessee Had Received A Sum Of ₹1.30 Crores During Fy 2012–13 From Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Alleged To Be A Paper Company Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries. The Ao Analysed The Bank Statement & Financials Of Strong Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Concluded That The Said Receipt Represented Unexplained Credit. In Response To The Notice Under Section 148, The Assessee Filed Its Return

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC dated 07.03.2025, passed against the assessment order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment

Krypton Industries Limited, Falta vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1186/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krypton Industries Ltd.…………………..……..…………………....Appellant Plot 31 & 32, Sector-1, Falta, 24 North Parganas, W.B – 743504. [Pan: Aabck0868N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala & Vidhi Ladia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Kolkata, Dated 31.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Information Was Received From The Investigation Wing, Kolkata, Indicating That The Assessee-Company Had Taken Bogus Purchases From One Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh To Reduce Its Taxable Income. A Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On The Said Person & His Statement Was Recorded. Based On The Appraisal Report & Material Found During The Search, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Was One Of The Beneficiaries Of Such Bogus

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

with written submissions and documentary evidence I.T.A. No.1186/Kol/2025 Krypton Industries Ltd before the Ld. CIT(A). Copies of the same, including acknowledgement by the NFAC, were also placed before us. It was pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) neither considered the affidavit nor the written submissions and erroneously narrated

Kabiguru Path Bhaban, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1165/KOL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1165/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Kobiguru Path Bhaban.………..……..…………………....Appellant 8B Tala, Bhabanath Sen Street, Shyambazar, Kol-4. [Pan: Aaetk0386P] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Acit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 25.03.2025, For The Assessment Year 2024–25, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2024–25 On 25.09.2024, Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 Of The Act. It Is Noted That The Audit Report Applicable In The Case Of The Assessee Was Form 10Bb, Which Was Filed On 26.12.2024. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & Passed An Intimation Order Dated 28.01.2025, Disallowing Exemption Under Section 11, Citing That Form 10Bb Was Not Filed Within The Prescribed Time. Against This, The

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 25.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2024–25, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case

Binod Kumar Burnwal, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Durgapur

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

ITA 1154/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1154/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Binod Kumar Burnwal…….……...……..…………………....Appellant C/O Ghanashyam Burnwal, Banagram, Nutandanga, Gogla, Burdwan – 713383. [Pan: Aizpb0692A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Durgapur…………………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,89,094, Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass With Prior Approval Of The Competent Authority. Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued, But There Was No Compliance From The Assessee Or His Authorised Representative. In The Absence Of Proper Books Of Account Or Supporting Documents, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Collected Copies Of Audited Financial Statements From The Assessee’S Chartered Accountant. It Was Observed That During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the NFAC [in short CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return

Greenearth Resources and Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. National E Assessment Centre, Kolkata

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

ITA 2128/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2128/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Greenearth Resources & Projects Ltd………………....Appellant Room No.866, Todi Corner, 8Th Floor, 32, Erza Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcn1393B] Vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Kolkata….…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 19.07.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 32 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 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 19.07.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay

Shriram Properties (Coimbatore) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 964/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.964/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Shriram Properties (Coimbatore) Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Corporate Ward-1, No.31, 2Nd Main Road, Coimbatore. T Chowdaiah Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore, Karnataka-560080. [Pan: Aakcs3522N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Ananthan, C.A & Smt.R.Lalitha, C.A, : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.Ananthan, C.A &

Section 143(3)Section 14A

MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 13.12.2013 for AY 2015-16. 2. At the outset, the registry has noted that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 398 days and the assessee

Cyber Pearl Information Technology Park Private Limited, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward - 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 928/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.928/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cyber Pearl Information The Income Tax Officer, Technology Park Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(3), Unit No.7 & 8, 1St Floor, Chennai. Pinnacle Building, Csir Road, International Tech Park, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacl 8207F]

For Appellant: Ms. Mahima Goud, Advocate (Virtual) for Ms. K.V.Mayuri, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147

Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 21.01.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. Cyber Pearl Information Technology Park

Riaz Ali, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 790/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Riaz Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.2-A, Puliyangudi North (International Taxation)-2(1), Street, Koothanallur, Tiruvarur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-614 101. [Pan:Auepr2020H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025, Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Intl Taxn Ward 2(1) Che, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Dated 26.12.2024. 2 Ita No.790/Chny/2025 (Ay 2018-19) Riaz Ali

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

impugned notice u/s.148 dated 04.04.2022 has been issued by the Income Tax officer, Intl Taxn Ward 2(1) CHE [JAO] and not by the NFAC which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. We also find that the impugned order under Clause (d) to Section 148A

Aa281 Urachikottai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Erode

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

ITA 650/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.650/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aa281 Urachikottai Primary The Dy. Commissioner Of Agricultural Cooperative Credit Vs. Income Tax, Society Ltd., Circle-1, Kuruppanayakkanpalayam P.O., Erode. Bhavani, Erode – 638 301. [Pan:Aafaa 7568R]

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A (virtual)For Respondent: Shri M.Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 69A

Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 06.12.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income

M/S. Darwyn & Vale Associates, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1081/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1081/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.Sudarshan, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 270ASection 274

Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 25.02.2025 in the matter of penalty levied by Ld. AO u/s. 270AA vide order dated 29.09.2022. V.M. Rajasekharan

V.M. Rajasekharan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1063/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1063/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.Subramaniam, C.A IJFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 03.04.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. V.M. Rajasekharan :- 2 -: 143(3) of the Income

Ss Theatres LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1038/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1038/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ss Theatres Llp, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, 2Nd Street Subba Rao Avenue Vs. Income Tax, Greams Road S.O., Non Corporate Circle-11(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aadfs 5384D]

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 154Section 5

Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 14.02.2025. 2. The CPC, Bengaluru, in the order passed u/s. 154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter