“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

Mohd. Naushad Ansari (Prop. Gulsan Sev Foods), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 620/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohd Naushad Ansari The Ito, Ward-5(3)(3) Prop: Gulsan Sev Foods Vs. Anandnagar Road 51, Pujara Ni Chali Ahmedabad. Nr.Sarangpur Bridge Kamdar Medan – Gomtipur Ahmedabad 380 021 Pan: Aiwpa 6480 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Addition Of Rs.28,54,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee During The Demonetisation Period. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. Facts Of The Case 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], confirming the addition ... proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were separately initiated. 3 2.3 Aggrieved by the above addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that the cash deposits were fully recorded in the books of account as cash sales and were supported

Shree 1008 Parshwanath Digambar Jin Chaityalay Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 559/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

vfeferf arifFa/Copy of the Order forwarded to: ardrereif_/ The Appellant weael / The Respondent. watts ss BTA / Concerned CIT HITT 3a (3He)/ The CIT(A)-(NFAC) fastetrar ofaferiet srerne aretetrer aiftewor Wsithe/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, as WSea [Guard file. od HeenepaR/ BY ORDER, Berea Tait (Asstt. Registrar) saat siete affect, ITAT, Ahmedabad

Sunrise Education Trust, Surendranagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 249/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarsunrise Education Trust Vs. The Cit (Exemption) C/O. Chavda Dhirubhai P. Ahmedabad–380 015 Po Tuva, Wadhwancity Surendranagar - 363 421 Pan No. : Aafts 9891 J (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri Chirag Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 02/12/2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)”] Denying Registration Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Exemption), Ahmedabad Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad Guard file. 6. BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित /// //// (Dy./Asstt

Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5) Previous Ward-3(3)(14), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 243/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”), dated 22.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section ... assessee is in second appeal before us. The following ground has been taken in this appeal: - “1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of purchase of immovable property considering the same as unexplained under Section

Mahemudkhan Ajamuddin Rana, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1198/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 69A

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 21.08.2024 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals ... National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard and thus, the order so passed is prayed to be set aside. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts

Civitas Sustainability Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1169/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1169/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : - Civitas Sustainability The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. B/12, Aarti Flat, Nilakiran Flat Apptt. Nr.Pulkit School, B/H. Fatehnagar, Paldi Ahmedabad – 380 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aahcc 9891 R (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29 /07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30 /07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Dated 27/03/2025, Rejecting The Application For Registration Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1169/Ahd/2025 Civitas Sustainability Foundation Vs. The Cit (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 80G(5)

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(E)’] dated 27/03/2025, rejecting the application for registration section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1169/Ahd/2025 Civitas Sustainability ... Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 1. 2. "%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- NFAC 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Blazenet Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is Dismissed

ITA 1892/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT DRFor Respondent: None

Section 115JSection 40

Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)"), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC"), Delhi vide order dated 02.09.2024 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. S3 Tradecom Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1060/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 271ASection 69A

Department against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 20.03.2024 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(a) The Ld.CIT

Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 873/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani Ito, Ward 1(1), Mahesh Traders C O Girls Fashion, Aurangabad Vs. 2/7/63, Tilak Path, Paithan Gate, Aurangabad- 431001 Pan: Aajpf4456C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Girish Ladda Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.01.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed only ground No.1 ... Rs.1,81,34,250/- deposited with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. 4. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before

Adesh Bhujangrao Nagawade, Shrigonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 71/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.09.2024 which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 dated ... raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the notice under section 148 has been issued

Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Legal Heir Shri Shashikant Patil, Tasgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4, Sangli

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

ITA 647/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.647/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Legal V The Income Tax Officer, Heir Shri Shashikant Patil, S Ward-4, Sangli. At Post Khatav Brahmanal, Tal-Tasgaon, Maharashtra- 416423. Pan: Apipp7148F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Shri Shashikant Patil As Legal Heir Of Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 26.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

appeal filed by Shri Shashikant Patil as Legal Heir of Late Bhauso Gunda Patil against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2012-13 dated 26.10.2023, emanating from order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated

Kakasaheb Thorat Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward-14(5), Pune

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

ITA 269/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.269/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kakasaheb Thorat Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha S Ward-14(5), Pune. Maryadit, At Post Bori Pardhi, Taluka Daund, Pune – 412203. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak4273E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2010-11 dated 26.11.2024, emanating from order u/s.154 of the Income ... No.269/PUN/2025 [A] 1961, dated 14.11.2011. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 3,961 days in filing the appeal on the analogy that appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause

Shri Kusumakar Achyut Shekatkar, Ahmednagar vs. I.to, Ward-2, Pune

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

ITA 244/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Kusumakar Achyut Shekatkar Ito, Ward 2, Ahmednagar House No.2, Fatima Housing Vs. Society Near Garden, Shrirampur, Ahmednagar – 413709 Pan: Ckjps9416B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 04.12.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order ... NFAC in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.17,60,29,399/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee

Rama Sunil Kerkar, Radhanagari vs. Income Tax Office, Kolhapur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1539/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Rama Sunil Kerkar, Kerkar, Gavthan Kolhapur Radhanagari, Radhanagari S.O., Kolhapur-416212 Maharashtra Pan-Ihlpk4562F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69

आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 07.06.2025 framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2019-20 which is arising out of penalty order levied u/s 271AAC

Pankaj Chandrakant Ladkat, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), Pune

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

ITA 1523/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1523/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vs Ito, Ward-14(3), Pankaj Chandrakant Ladkat, Pune S No 211, Rupi Nagar, Bhekrainagar, Phursungi, S.O Fursungi, Pune- 412308 Maharashtra Pan-Agwpl9120G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.04.2025 for A.Y. 2019-20 framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

Iqbal Abubakar Khatib, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Office, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1505/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 03.06.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s144B

Mandeep Singh Kulbirsingh Thandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1277/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

appeal filed by Mr.Mandeep singh Kulbirsingh Thandi as Legal Heir of Kulbirsingh S. Thandi against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) [[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2010-11 dated 28.08.2023, emanating from order u/s.144 r.w.ss 147 of the Income

Abdul Rauf Gani Ghone, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 1052/PUN/2025[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1052/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Rauf Gani Ghone, V The Income Tax Officer, Sr.No.50/1-A, Gali No.3, S Ward-14(3), Pune. Bhagyadey Nagar, Pune – 411048. Maharashtra. Pan: Afrpg3750P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak-Ar & Mrs.Archena Shetty-Advocate Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 19.02.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 07.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 19.02.2025, emanating from order u/s.143(3) of the Income

Vikas Dattu Deokar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vikas Dattu Deokar, V The Income Tax Officer, S.N.126/1, Plat No.18A, S Ward-14(1), Pune. Z Corner, Matoshri Niwas, Manjari Bk, Manjari Budruk, Po: Manjari Farm, Dist: Pune, Maharashtra – 412307. Pan: Aispd7124N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 20.02.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 17.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250

Ashok Dhanraj Chordia, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-1, Pune

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

ITA 977/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

No.977/PUN/2024 “17. So far as the first issue raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in quashing the re-assessment proceedings are concerned, we find that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from ... seized document relates to the assessee. 22. Under these circumstances and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) / NFAC based on various decisions, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC that the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 was not valid