“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 2/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in objecting the order of Resp. CIT(A)-NFAC without considering the fact that two notices U/s 148 of the Act were issue on the appellant vide notice dated 22.04.2020 and 31.03.2021 thereby making the assessment ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in objecting the order of Resp. CIT(A)-NFAC without considering the fact that no reasons were provided to the appellant along with the documents replied upon at the time of issue of notice under section

Shri Ganesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 196/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.196/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Ganesh Urban V The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society S Ward-1(1), Aurangabad. Limited, Main Market, Sarafa Galli, Sillod, Auranbabad – 431112. Pan: Aagas6006D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 05.12.2023 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Income Tax Department, Nfac U/S. 250 Of The It Act, 1961 Vide Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058480083(1), Dated 05/12/2023. The Said Order Is Passed By Dismissing Appeal Filed By The Appellant Society Against The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Ward 1(4), Aurangabad, [Now Ward 1(1), Aurangabad] Hence The Appellant Society Shri Ganesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69ASection 80Section 80P(2)(a)

21/06/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Act, dated 05.12.2023 for the A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “Being aggrieved by the Order ... Income Tax Department, NFAC u/s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 vide Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058480083(1), dated 05/12/2023. The said Order is passed by dismissing appeal filed by the appellant society against the order passed by the Assessing Officer Ward 1(4), Aurangabad, [now Ward 1(1), Aurangabad] hence the Appellant

Candid Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 87/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 271(1)(b)

Limited (“the assessee”) feeling aggrieved by the separate orders all dated 15.09.2023 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“ld. CIT(A)”) relating to A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18. The issues involved in all these appeals are similar

Candid Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 81/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 271(1)(b)

Kakatiya University Warangal, Telangana vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 397/HYD/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. M. Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kakatiya University (“the assessee”) feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2024 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“ld. CIT(A)”) relating to A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee filed its Return of Income

Mahesh Kumar Sukhjika Kedia, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumaran, DR

Section 143(1)(a)

/Pronouncement on: 21/06/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 31/01/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Mahesh Kumar Sukhjika Kedia (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal

Padmanaba Reddy Metukuru, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 107/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)

NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 06/12/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Padmanaba Reddy Metukuru (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal, with a delay

Anjuman E Khadimul Muslimeen Refah-E-Aam, Kachiguda vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 552/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 31/01/2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of ANJUMAN E KHADIMUL MUSLIMEEN REFAH-E-AAM (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2019-20, assessee preferred this appeal

Marda Collections Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and further directions as per para 8 are issued to the AO

ITA 71/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri B. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43B

Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) dated 18.12.2021. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of unpaid professional tax deducted from employees salary u/s. 43B of the Income ... NFAC has erred in holding that professional tax deducted from employees salary is deemed income under section 2(24)(x). 3. Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in holding that unpaid professional tax deducted from employees salary is covered under 43B(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Marda

Natkhat Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata

ITA 56/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2 Natkhat Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2012-13 “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 16/11/2023

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... 21st June, 2024 JD, Sr. P.S. 9 Sanjay Kumar Singh, AY: 2020-21. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //// By Order

M/S Salputri Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 310/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed

M/S. Ganan Mercantile Private Limited., Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 931/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 35A

MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... facts of the case. 2 Ganan Mercantile P. Ltd. AY: 2014-15 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not considering the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to provide information/material/statement which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-49(1), Kolkata, Ultadanga vs. The Rifle Factory Co-Operative Society Ltd, Ishapore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 813/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income The Rifle Factory Co-Operative Tax, Circle – 49(1), Kolkata Vs Society Limited Nawabganj, P.O.- Ishapore Dist. – North 24 Parganas Pin - 743144 [Pan : Aaaat6436E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somak Basu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Inf Ac Has Passed The Order In Favour Of The Appellant Society Without Giving The Due Opportunity To The Ao As No Letter Calling For Remand Report Was Either Sent/Triggered Through Name-Based/Designation Based Email Of The Ao, But In The Appellate Order, It Is Mentioned That The Ao Was Directed To Submit A Remand Report In This Case On 20.04.2023 When The Ld. Cit Appeal, Imf Ac Accepted Additional/Fresh Documents Like Bank Statement Of Sbi Bank Having Account No. 11223335284 Furnished By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Somak Basu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

Year: 2017-18 The Rifle Factory Co-operative Society Limited 2. That on the facts and circumstances, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deciding the case based upon the contention of the appellant assessee and in violation of the rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence ... made a petition on 17/03/2020 before C1T(A)-15 praying for fixation of an early date. The case was fixed for compliance in NFAC platform on 22/03/2021 and it had responded on die date as desired by NFAC Afterwards, neither any date was fixed for compliance from NFAC

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 541/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)” passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Rakesh Mishra) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21st June, 2024 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //// By Order

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Deergold Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-6(1), Kol, Kolkata

ITA 499/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Relating To The Identity & Financial Worthiness Of The Share Applicants, The Justification Of The Premium Received By The Assessee & Also Relating To The Genuineness Of The Transaction In Question. The Assessee Will Duly Comply With The Notices Issued By The Cit(A) & Will Also Furnish The Required Documents & Evidences Before The Cit(A) Or Before The Assessing Officer, As The Case May Be.

Section 68

dated 05.07.2023: “The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21st March, 2023 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee has taken two grounds of appeal, out of which Ground

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23rd February, 2023, of Ld. CIT(A, NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2018- 19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance ... Representative of the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chander Arjan Das Manwani vs. NFAC and Others, 283 Taxman 380 (Bom). 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has submitted that when the AO has made no variation

Madan Lal Sharma, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

ITA 166/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 270ASection 274Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” B”-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys

Madan Lal Sharma, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

ITA 165/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 270ASection 274Section 69Section 69A