“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

Ms Mapaex Remedies Pvt Ltd, Bhopal vs. ACIT 2 (1) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 486/IND/2024[2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

Bhopal ITA Nos. 486, 444, 489/Ind/2024 & 508 to 510 for AYs 2012-13, 2016-17 & 2017-18 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of respective assessment-orders dated 30.12.2019/ 23.12.2018 passed by DICT/ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147/143

Mapaex Remedies Pvt Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT -2- (1), Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 444/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

Swati Kushwah, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 (5) Indore, Indore

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

ITA 301/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniswati Kushwah Ito Ward 3(5) 6/14, Nanda Nagar Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Czepk8002M Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 09.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2024

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, for A.Y.2017-18. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It transpires from the record that the last

Nirvindhya Shiksha Avam Sanskriti Prachar Samiti, Rajgarh vs. ITO, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 100/IND/2024[A Y 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Nirvindhya Shiksha Avam Income-Tax Officer, Sanskriti Prachar Samiti, Rajgarh Biaora, C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37, Trade Centre, Vs. 18,South Tukoganj, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaan8371J Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2024

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)

Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 04.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 17.02.2022 passed by learned NFAC, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 270A of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Alwar vs. Man Mohan Krishna, Alwar

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

ITA 503/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh , (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 270ASection 40

ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Department is before this Appellate Tribunal, feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act”). The matter pertains to assessment year

Mahendra Singh, Sikar vs. ITO Ward Neem Ka Thana, Neem Ka Thana

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

ITA 440/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)

Section 144Section 147Section 149(1)(b)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

array atitcia after, cage =aradis, wage IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” A” JAIPUR So Wa. Ware, ae

Anuradha Kumari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 469/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 234A

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 26-05-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-15 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Shree Rajput Sabha, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 311/JPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डॉ. एस.सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Krishnappa Paramesh, Bengaluru vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 413/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Koushik, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

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

Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 10.1.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised

Nava Karnataka Souhard Credit Co-Operative Limited, Hospet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hosapete

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

ITA 1428/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

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

ITA No.1428/Bang/2024 Nava Karnataka Souhard Credit Co-operative Limited, Hospet IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

Praveen Halagappa Mariyappa(HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1394/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.05.2024 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 20.3.2018 admitting income

M/S. Seva Bharathi Shikshana Samsthe, Chamarajanagara vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Mysore

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

ITA 738/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vageesh Hegde, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 11Section 119Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 30/05/2023 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1053300920(1) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee in the present case is a charitable trust and filed return

ACIT 23-1, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M

Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

appeal for the Assessment Year 2015-16 preferred by the Revenue challenging the order, dated 01/12/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] partly allowing the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 20/12/2018, passed under Section

ACIT-231, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 368/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M

Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

Haresh Dilip Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3646/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: ShriNishit GandhiFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR

Section 10(38)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereafter called ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2014-15, date of order ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal. Centre (NFAC) ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] which in turn affirmed the order passed by the Learned Income Tax Officer-Wd 25(2)(4) Mumbai (the AO) making

Mohammed Khalid Habib Parihar, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3345/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50C

appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “GROUND I On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs. 45,86,388/- u/s 50C towards the difference in stamp 1 Mohammed Khalid Habib Parihar; A.Y.2013-14 duty value ... please be deleted. GROUND II (without prejudice to GROUND 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs. 45,86,388/- u/s 50C based on the amount received by the Assessee, rather than calculating on the Share

Mr. Rakesh Heeralal Ameta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward. 33(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 3210/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 68Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. “The Hon'ble CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 70,97,778/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credit under section 69A r.w.s

Hardik Kantilal Devani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 2426/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawalι.Τ.Α No.2425/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α No.2426/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2012-13 Α.Υ. 2013-14 Hardik Kantilal Devani Vs Incometaxofficer-23(1)(5), Mumbai 2, Shiv Niwas, Sai Baba Road Jawahar Nagar, Khar (East) Mumbai-400 051 Room No.114, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai Pan: Aihpd3812A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Mahendra Paste Respondent By Shrip.D.Chougule (Addl. Cit) Srdr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/09/2024 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M: Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Were Filed Against The Order Of The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act'), For Assessment Years 2012-13& 2013-14, Date Of Orders 07.03.2023& 08.03.2023 Respectively. The Impugned Orders Are Emanated From The Orders Of The Learned Income-Tax Officer 23(1)(5), Mumbai Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act, Date Of Orders 04/12/2019. 2

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

10/09/2024 ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Both the appeals of the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act'), for Assessment Years

Hardik Kantilal Devani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITAs No

ITA 2425/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra PasteFor Respondent: ShriP.D.Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Both the appeals of the assessee werefiled against the order of theLearned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Years 2012-13& 2013-14,date of orders

ACIT, Piramal Chambers vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

ITA 194/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

appeal for the Assessment Year 2015-16 preferred by the Revenue challenging the order, dated 01/12/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the CIT(A)'] partly allowing the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 20/12/2018, passed under Section