“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

Ramesh Chandra Nayak, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Rourkela

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

ITA 563/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaramesh Chandra Nayak, A.C.I.T., Nabakrushna Nagar, Rourkela, Circle-Rourkela, Vs. Rourkela-769016 (Odisha). Rourkela. Pan No. Abfpn 5693 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Sambalpur/10108/2018-19 dated 26/09/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Shri Chitrasen Parida, ld. A.R. is appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar ... MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 17/02/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee - Ramesh Chandra Nayak, Nabakrushna Nagar, Rourkela, 2. Revenue- A.C.I.T., Circle-Rourkela, Rourkela. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order

Prashant Jugalkishore Rathi, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Akola

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Prashant Jugalkishore Rathi Ito, Ward–3, Akola Laxmi Nagar Shrinath Apartment, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Murtizapur Gaurakshan Road, Road, Maharashtra – 444107. Maharashtra – 444004. [Pan: Aocpr1040K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. Shikha Loya, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh:

Section 144Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 41(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 28/12/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds

ACIT Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Bharat Rail Automation Private Limited, Amravati

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 357/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Bharat Rail Automation Private Aayakar Bhawan, Vs Limited, Amravati Saturna, Amravati, Tarnaprabha, Opposite Sahakar Maharashtra–444607. Bhavan, Morshi Road, Amravati, Maharashtra – 9969232857. [Pan: Aaccb5060C] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT

Balaji Educational Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, CPC, Lucknow

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

ITA 712/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Balaji Educational Welfare V. Assessing Officer, Cpc Society Lucknow-226001. Balaji Public School Near Railway Station Nawabganj, Barabanki-225001. Pan:Aacab8487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

rectification application was rejected vide order dated 04.09.2020 against which assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi who had upheld the rejection of the claim made by the assessee u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act vide its rectification application. Page 12 of 17 5. Before

Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 828/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.828/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave The Ito बनाम/ C-168, Shivam Duplex Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Opp. Ambe School Vadodara – 390 007 Manjalpur Vadodara – 390 011 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Brqpd 7728 G (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prashant Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 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 (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 07/11/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Of Rs.3,01,65,800/- On Account Of Bogus/Unexplained Expenditure. Vikramkumar Bhavarlal Dave Vs. Ito Asst.Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 07/11/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. #थ" / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु% / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु% अपील 4. ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स#ािपत ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Jivan Jyot Trust, Umreth vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.697/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Jivan Jyot Trust The Ito बनाम/ 6, Yamuna Park Society Ward-1 V/S. C/O. Dr Mb Bhagat, Anand – 388 001 Ode Bazar Umreth – 388 220 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaaj 1506 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/112025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 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 (Appeals), [Addl/Jcit(A) Mysore, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust & Is Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) & Is Also Approved U/S.80G (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income (Itr) For Ay 2020-21 Jivan Jyot Trust Vs. Ito Asst.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 80G

been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [ADDL/JCIT(A) Mysore, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 14/02/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant #थ" / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु% / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु% अपील 4. ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स#ािपत ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Vimarsh Prakashbhai Vasavada, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara, Gujarat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

ITA 2653/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234BSection 234CSection 271ASection 54FSection 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 20.11.2025 passed for A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “Ex-parte Order

Dilipbhai Ishwarbhai Harijan, Undera vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

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

ITA 2568/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambledilipbhai Ishwarbhai Harijan, Income Tax Officer, Vs. F-29, Shakti Nagar Society, Ward 4(1)(7), Undera, Vadodara-391330 Vadodara [Pan : Akcph 9589 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri A.C. Brahmakshatriya, Ca Respondent Represented By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 249(2)Section 250

been filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year ... raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. That, in law, the impugned appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC), New Delhi is against natural justice, bad in law. It is, therefore, deserved to be annulled. 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2388/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide orders dated 14.10.2025, for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2387/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

Neetaben Patel, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1794/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The order passed by lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty of Rs.16,70,000/- u/s. 271D of the Act ignoring submission of the appellant. 3. Ld. NFAC

Neetaben Patel, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1793/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal, Ghodasar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1880/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1880/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer Roopsingh Bhupal Singh बनाम/ Ward-3(2)(1) Goyal V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 49, Vishala Park Nr. Hariom Nagar Ghodasar Ahmedabad – 380 050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afxpg 1573 Q (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/112025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/08/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue, In This Appeal, Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Of Rs.2,48,62,500/- Ito Vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal Asst.Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

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

present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28/08/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. #थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु% / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु% अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स#ािपत ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Pramod Ramavatar Poddar, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Central Circle, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of as directed above

ITA 174/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.174/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pramod Ramavatar Poddar The Pr. Cit, Central Circle बनाम/ 203, Pinnacle Business Prk Ahmedabad – 380 009 V/S. Corporate Road Prahladnagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abrpp 6193 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr.Cit’] Dated 30/03/2021 Passed In Exercise Of His Revision Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015- 16. Pramod Ramavatar Poddar Vs. Pr.Cit Asst.Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. #थ" / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु% / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु% अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , गाड" फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स#ािपत ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Megha Kishor Dalvi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 955/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.955/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Megha Kishor Dalvi, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune 27 Amruta Apartment, Sinhagad Road, Anandnagar Manik Baug, Pune-411051 Pan : Ajopd8763C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by [„Ld. CIT(A)‟] NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts

Sunil Subhash Shelar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 3203/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Suchit Dilip Mane, Sangali vs. ITO Ward-1, Sangali

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

ITA 2601/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2571/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa NC Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

BENCH: The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 19.09.2025 and 03.10.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment years 2022-23 and 2020-21 respectively. Since identical grounds have been raised in both the appeals, therefore, for the sake ... Rs.2,89,33,263/-). 5. Since the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 117 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not given any reason for filing of the appeal and has not filed any condonation petition for condonation

Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2570/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa NC Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Jitendra Ashoklal Katariya, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Vaze, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL