“national faceless assessment centre”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B1,082 judgments

The decision most relied on for national faceless assessment centre is Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras (169 Taxmann.com 542), cited in 50 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on national faceless assessment centre

Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras

169 Taxmann.com 542 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) does not have the power to issue notices under Section 148 or 148A of the Income Tax Act. Its jurisdiction for assessment or reassessment begins only from the stage of issuing notices under Section 142(1) or 143(2).

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.

Judgments citing national faceless assessment centre

Mukesh Shivgan Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1811/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

Mukesh Shivgan Patel ……………...………… Appellant B-2, Himalaya Darshan, Din Dayal Road, Anand Nagar, Dombivali (W)- 421 201 [PAN: ALFPP9824K] Vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ………………….…… Respondent Appearances by: None for the appellant Tejinder Pal Singh for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : August 10, 2022 Date

Hemson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1898/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-2014

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Hemson Priate Limited ……………...………… Appellant 60 Mistry Industrial Complex, MIDC Cross, Road-A, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 093 [PAN: AAACH5549J] Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi ………………….…… Respondent Appearances by: None for the appellant Tejinder Pal Singh for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : August 10, 2022 Date of pronouncement

Hemson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1897/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

M/S. Logicon Alternate Fuels Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1842/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Mersen India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 381/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mersen India Pvt. The Joint Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 5, Bommasandra Income Tax (Osd), Industrial Area, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 099. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaace3191K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Ramya Nayak, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 22/03/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. Transfer Pricing 1. The Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo"), The Assessing Officer ("Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ("Drp") Have Grossly Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Determining The Arm'S Length Price ("Alp") Of The Human Resource Services As Nil. 2. The Learned Tpo/ Ao/Drp Has Erred In Not Considered The Fact That The Human Resource Services Is As Per The Arm'S Length Price Adopting The Transaction Net Margin Method (" Tnmm")

For Appellant: Smt. Ramya Nayak, CA

Pronouncement : 08-08-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against assessment order dated 22/03/2022 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: “The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. Transfer Pricing

Ksb Ltd. (Earlier Known As "Ksb Pumps Ltd."), Pune vs. The Dy CIT, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

dated 22 April 2021 (received by the Appellant on 22 April 2021) passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NaFAC'), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned 'AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 25/01/2022 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre for A.Y. 2017-18 on following revised grounds of appeal: Page 2 IT(TP)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 181/Bang/2022

Cerner Healthcare Solutions India Private Limited (Erstwhile Cerner Healthcare Solution Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 171/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 37Section 40

Pronouncement : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the final assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144(C13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 13.01.2022 for the assessment year

M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Pronouncement : 25.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the final assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated

Prashant Vijay Kale, Thane vs. CPC, Income Tax Dept., Bengaluru

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

ITA 2100/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm National Faceless Appeal Prashant Vijay Kale Center 47-403, Swastik Residency, Centralized Processing Near Muchhala College, Vs. Gb Road Kavesar, Center, Income Tax Thane, Mumbai-400 615 Department, Bengaluru (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adapk8367M Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Adv Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 4(2)Section 6(1)Section 90

assessee made a detailed written submission wherein in paragraph number 5 the complete facts are mentioned which is also been reproduced by the National faceless assessment centre but did not consider that assessee has also filed original return of income. Undisputedly along with the original return of income form number

M/S. Hp Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234B

Effect (in INR) 1. Assessment is bad in law and on facts The final assessment order dated 28 January 2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ('NFAC' or the 'AO') under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) read with section 1446 of the Income

Aadesh Commodities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ld Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assesssment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1701/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015

Section 143(3)

Aadesh Commodities Pvt. Ltd., ………….……… Appellant 14, 1st Floor, Plumber House, 557 JSS Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai 400002 [PAN:AAHCA3726H] Vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi ……………… Respondent Appearances by None for the applicant Chetan Kacha for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : July 15, 2022 Date of pronouncement

M/S. Yahoo Software Development India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 178/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 178/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Yahoo Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., Torrey Pines, The Joint Embassy Golf Links Commissioner Of Business Park, Income-Tax, Off Indira Nagar – Special Range – 7, Koramangala Vs. Bengaluru. Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan: Aaacy1876D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Amulaya, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25/01/2022 Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Amulaya, Advocate

Section 92A(2)(a)

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 25/01/2022 passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: Page 2 of 11 IT(TP)A No. 178/Bang/2022 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)

relied upon: Functional comparability- 1. Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Addl./Jt./Dy./Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)- IT(TP)A No.397/Bang/2021- AY 2016-17 2. Unisys India Private Ltd vs The DCIT Circle 7(1)(1)- M.P. No. 29/Bang/2022 ... service uncomparable- 1. Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Addl./Jt./Dy./Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)- IT(TP)A No.397/Bang/2021- AY 2016-17 2. Rampgreen Solutions private Limited Vs Commissioner of Income tax(ITA 102/2015) In view of above

Income Tax Officer(Exemption) Ward-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Physicians of India, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 974/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Section 11Section 143Section 2(15)Section 28

assessee by the aforesaid decision. In this view of the matter we see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, wherein only the Tribunal decision (supra) has been followed. We approve and confirmed the stand taken by the learned National Faceless Assessment Centre

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Physicians of Indiaf, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 973/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Section 11Section 143Section 2(15)Section 28

Income Tax Officer(Exemption)Ward-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Physicians of India, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 972/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 11Section 143Section 2(15)Section 28

Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Physicians of India, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 971/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 11Section 143Section 2(15)Section 28

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 892/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Anchor Offshore Services Ltd., ……………...………… Appellant 771 Hico House, Ground Floor, Pt. Satavalkar Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016 [PAN: AAACA3529R] Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Mumbai ………………….…… Respondent ITA Nos.: 914 & 915/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Rajshree Polypack Ltd., ……………...………… Appellant LodhaSupremus, Unit No 503-504, 5th Floor, Road

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 891/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19