“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

The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association®, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

ITA 699/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Ravishankar, A.R

Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”), which are directed against order of NFAC both are dated 15.3.2024, ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 2 of 23 ITA Nos.701 & 704/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining ... penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 which are directed against the different orders of NFAC dated 15.3.2024 and ITA Nos.700 & 703/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment years

Karavali Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Davanagere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 478/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowda .S. GowdarFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)

Section 250Section 58Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80p

maintained as the same issues of the Appellant involved has already been adjudicated for the Asst. Year 2017-18 by the CIT(A) NFAC (supra) & there is no need for fresh adjudication. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before ... well settled law that the consistency should be maintained and if the issues involved has already been adjudicated recently by the Ld CIT(A) NFAC for the Page 6 of 7 Asst year 2017-18 & accordingly the appellant is not eligible to claim interest income from investment with co-operative

M/S. Prestige Alta Vista Holdings, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 383/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14A

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi dated 10/01/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/ 250/ 2023-24/1059565669(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that

Dahisar Sanskruti Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Unit, Income Tax Department, Bangalore

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

ITA 209/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anand Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.11.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Abhitech Energycon Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 3120/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249Section 250Section 80I

appeal for the assessment year 2015-16 are reproduced as under:- “Legal grounds: 1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as „NFAC‟) is not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant vide its order dated 06.07.2023 without appreciating the fact that the inadvertent delay in filing ... computing the period of limitation u/s 249 of the Act. Thus, the said order is arbitrary, unlawful, and therefore, bad in law 2. The NFAC is not justified in passing the order dated 06.07.2023 without condoning the delay and in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant without appreciating

Abhitech Energycon Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle - 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 3119/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249Section 250Section 80I

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2732/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2017-18 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasu, CIT-DR &For Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar &

Section 80I

BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The revenue has filed these appeals challenging the orders passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issues are urged in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2729/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2017-18 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasu, CIT-DR &For Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar &

Section 80I

R P Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 14/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him As Assessee Merely Needed A Copy Of Assessment Order.

Section 144

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 15/11/2013 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. At the time of hearing ... pointed out at the outset by Ld. AR that NFAC has passed the impugned order without duly determining the question of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 4. After appreciating the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had stretched

Zanskar Properties Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 27(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3888/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal and further restore the matter on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving notice afresh include serving on the following email Id provided in Form-36. (i) tarsem@gemsedu.in (ii) Yatin.Sharma@aureuslaw.com.

Section 143(3)

SHARMA, JM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055412330(1) dated 25/08/2023 against the order passed by Page

Nisha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(3), Ward

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

ITA 2768/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 18.09.2023 for the AY 2014-15 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. Ld. Counsel

Nisha Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(3), Ward

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

ITA 2767/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 151

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 18.09.2023 for the AY 2012-13 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 144 read with section

Satya, Shimla vs. ITO, Ward-2, Shimla

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

ITA 531/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 282(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2015-16 against the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken : 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

Jagjit Kaur Chawla, Mohali vs. ITO, Circle 6(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 147/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench On 30.05.2024 Against The Order Passed U/S 250(6) By The Worthy Cit(A), Nfac. We Have Been Instructed The Appellant To State That She Is Not Interested In Continuing This Appeal & She Prays For Grant Of Permission To Withdraw This Appeal. The Said Permission May Please Be Granted. We Shall Be Highly Obliged.”

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate for Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)

appellant above cited filed appeal before the Hon'ble Bench on 30.05.2024 against the order passed u/s 250(6) by the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC. We have been instructed the appellant to state that she is not interested in continuing this appeal and she prays for grant of permission

Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty in respect

Rishabh Colours Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 55/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 148Section 68

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts

Talegaon Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-9(3), Pune

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

ITA 743/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.743/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2020-21 Talegaon Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Patsanstha Limited, Pune Bajar Peth, Talegaon Dabhade, Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune 410506 Maharashtra Pan : Aabat3160G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12.02.2024 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Cooperative Society registered ... with other co-operative banks holding that the said interest does not qualify for deduction. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

Shri Hariom Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 680/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.679 & 680/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Shanshank Deogadkar

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

pronouncement : 03.06.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi both dated 07.02.2024 for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21 respectively. Identical grounds have been taken by the assessee in these appeals ... said interest does not qualify for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar Cooperative Sale Society

Shri Hariom Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 679/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.679 & 680/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Shanshank Deogadkar

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Shree Kalika Devi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Karad, Karad vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

ITA 419/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Kalika Devi Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit 6/1, Kasar Galli, Guruwar Peth, Karad Ta.: Karad, Dist.: Satara-415110 Pan: Aaaak3735D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satara . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059407077(1) Dt. 05/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/06/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 80P(2)

When aforestated denial of 80P(2) deduction is assailed in an appeal before first appellate authority, the Ld. NFAC accorded as many as six clear opportunities of hearing from dt. 06/04/2024 to 07/12/2023 which however remained unattended & un-responded. In absence of any representation or written submission from the assessee ... NFAC dismissed the appeal ex- parte on dual grounds viz; (1) for non-prosecution by the assessee in view of ‘CIT Vs B.N. Bhattacharya’ [1997, 118 ITR 461 (SC)] and (2) appeal was time barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved assessee brought