← All Phrases

“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
43
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
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Interglobe Technology Quotient Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner Circle 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 95/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 199Section 250Section 251(2)Section 80G

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “learned 2 First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”), in Appeal no. NFAC/2019- 20/10192967, arising out of order dated 22.09.2022 u/s 143(3) read ... with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the “AO”), pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a private limited company inter- alia, engaged

Ajay Singh Chhabbra, Rampur Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 904/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.12.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of Ld. CIT (A) is against

Arigato and Obligado Merchandise Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 31/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

Pronouncement 28.05.2024 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14.08.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:- 1. That learned National ... Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the order of assessment dated 21.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 determining the total income of the appellant at Rs.1,65,25,070/- as against the returned income

Sudha Kapoor, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 21.12.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The appellant did not get an opportunity to present

Sunita Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3775/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Tyagi, Vs Ito, R-7/120, Raj Nagar, Ward-2(2)(3), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. Pan-Aaupt3785H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahil Sharma, Adv & Shri Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 30.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 151

BHARAT, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 30.11.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances

Benzi Inapex Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

JUDICIAL MEMBER : The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC - Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed

Dhoom Singh Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3034/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Pronouncement 28/05/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Income Tax Department/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), dated 12/06/2023 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds of Appeal are as under:- “1. That having regard to the facts

Vardhman Buildtech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Jt.CIT, Range-78, New Delhi

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

ITA 102/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekvardhman Buildtech P. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Range 78, Wz – 22A, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Vashista Park, Pankha Road, New Delhi – 110 046. (Pan : Aaccv6445M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Arora, Ca Shri Suresh Kapoor, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date Of Order : 28.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 15.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In This Case, Assessee Was Imposed Penalty Of Rs.30,12,420/- Under Section 272A(2)(G) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) By The Jcit In Order Dated 30.09.2016. 2 3. Brief Statement Of Facts By Assessee Before The Ld. Cit (A) Read As Under :- “Appellant Was Imposed Penalty Of Rs.3012420 Under Section 272A 2 G By Ld. Joint Commissioner Vide Impugned Order Dt. 30.09.2016. According To Him The Appellant Did Not Comply With Provision Of Section 203 Of The Act. The Appellant Has Delayed In Issuing Tds Certificate Thereby Attracting Penalty Under Section 272A 2 G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Proceeding For Imposition Of Penalty Was Initiated Through A Show Cause Notice Under Section 272A 2 G Read With Section 274 1 Dated 22.03.2016 In Response To The Above Final Reply Dated 06.04.2016 Was Filed By The Appellant. The Submission Of The Appellant Was Not Considered By Ld. Joint Commissioner As A Result Penalty Of Rs.3012420 Was Imposed. Feeling Aggrieved With The Order Of Ld Joint Commissioner The Appellant Has Preferred An Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 203Section 272ASection 272A(2)(g)Section 274

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 15.11.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. In this case, assessee was imposed penalty of Rs.30,12,420/- under section 272A

Rajesh Goyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT CC-14, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and as a consequential effect, impugned assessment is quashed

ITA 331/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Rajesh Goyal Vs. Dcit Ff, Plot No.32, Road No.43, Cc-14 West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aalpg2490F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3013/DEL/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6219/DEL/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1998-99

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 264Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Ramnarh Dilip Gadade, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-9(5), Pune

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

ITA 628/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.628/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 31.01.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual deriving income from Agricultural

Shree Prabhu Petrochemicals Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Income Tax -1(5), Aurangabad

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 511/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 511/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Shree Prabhu Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. 167, Cidco Colony, S.O., Shivaji Nagar-431003. Pan : Aarcs8700P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270A

27/05/2024 आदेश / ORDER Per G. D. Padmahshali, AM; Against the DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060794097(1) dt. 12/02/2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’] the assessee company instituted the present appeal. 2.1 Tersely stated facts of the case are that ... assessee unsuccessfully contested the aforestated rejection of book and estimations of gross profit vis-à-vis addition in appeal before Ld. NFAC. 2.4 Aggrieved by the action of both the tax authorities the assessee came in present appeal challenging the action of tax authorities on following grounds; 1. ‘The Learned

Shashikant Ramswaroop Chamadia, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 486/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shashikant Ramswaroop Chamadia Vs. Dcit, Sr No.31/2/9, North Koregaon Park, Circle-12, Near Ganga Heritage, Pune Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001 Pan : Aanpc8379H Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 57

Date of pronouncement 27-05-2024 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2018-19 arises against the NFAC, Delhi‟s order dated 08-01-2024 passed in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059446739(1) in proceedings under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short

Rajani Ratnakar Kulkarni, Ichalkaranji vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 439/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajani Ratnakar Kulkarni Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Gat No.171/189/1, Kamala Ichalkaranji Nehru Hsg Society, Nr Laikar Chitra Mandir Kabnoor Vasahat, Ichalkaranji – 416115 Pan : Aljpk9201H Appellant Respondent

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Date of pronouncement 27-05-2024 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the NFAC, Delhi‟s order dated 10-01-2024 passed in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059564183(1) in proceedings under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short

Samadhan Krushna Katekar, Raigad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Raigad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 426/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Samadhan Krushna Katekar Vs. National 214, Narmada Krishna Niwas Faceless Dhutum, Jasai Uran – 400702 Assessment Maharashtra Centre Pan : Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

Date of pronouncement 27-05-2024 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2016-17 arises against the NFAC, Delhi‟s order dated 03-01-2024 passed in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059305389(1) in proceedings under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short ... Katekar 3. Learned DR invited our attention to the assessee‟s following substantive grounds raised in his instant appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.1,80,94,690/- as interest income received on account of land acquisition, thus ignoring

Sahil Enterprises, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 123/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 250(6)Section 68

PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.12.2023 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of wholesale trade ... being the cash in hand generated out of business activity. 2.1 Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the CIT(A) / NFAC in the ex-parte order passed by him sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Aggrieved with

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited, Pune

ITA 998/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

No.998/PUN/2023 filed by the Revenue and cross objection C.O. No.4/PUN/2024 filedby the Assessee are directed against the order ofld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] u/s.250 of the Act, dated 17.07.2023 emanating from the assessment order of under section 143(3) of the Act, for A.Y.2014-15dated02.12.2016. Also, the assessee is before

Miryala Exports and Imports P Ltd, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 413/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 413/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Miryala Exports & Vs. Income Tax Officer Imports (P) Ltd Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccm9283E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha,DR
Section 144Section 147

की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024 आदेश/ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16/01/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2011-12. 2. At the outset it is seen that there is a delay of 35 delays in filing of this appeal