“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

DCIT -17 (1), Mumbai vs. Freyaz Kurush Shroff, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4212/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

For Respondent: Ms. Freyaz Kurush Shroff (

Section 139(1)

foreign tax credit. This decision itself is based on Vinodkumar foreign tax credit. This decision itself is based on Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in ITA No. 680/Bang/2022 Lakshmipathi Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in ITA No. 680/Bang/2022 Lakshmipathi Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in ITA No. 680/Bang/2022

Supreme Treon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4201/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Sandeep Vanjare, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm. of Income Tax Circle-34(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4179/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sandeep Vanjare, Asst. Commissioner Of Room-105, Madhusudan Income Tax, Chawl-135, Circle-34(3), Vs. P.B. Marg, Room No.832, Worli, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 013 Bkc, Bandra East, Pan: Abvpv8834H Maharashtra- 400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R

Section 192Section 250Section 89Section 89(1)

Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.10.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. 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

Mr. Zamirullah Subedarkhan Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4165/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Zamirullah Ito- Ward 20(3)(5), Subedarkhan Khan Room No. 205, B.P.T., Piramal Chamber, Plot No. 262, Lalbaug, Vs. Kolsa Bunder, Mumbai- 400012 Darukhana, Reay Road, Mumbai- 400010. Pan: Aabpk9505H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 25 .04 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 .04 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056652408(1) Dated 29/9/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.14,08,440/- Which Was Processed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Gangoli Ramesh Shenoy, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 4159/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.09.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. 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

M/S Akshar Anshul Construction LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28(1), Mumbai

ITA 4150/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 25/09/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. In the grounds of appeal assessee has challenged disallowance of claim u/s. 80IB (10) of Rs.1

Sunshine Planet Realty LLP, Dadar East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(4), Mumbai (Presently ITO-20(3)(1) Mumbai), Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 4120/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sunshine Planet Realty Llp, Income Tax Officer, 5, 1St Floor, Sharda Sadan, Ward 20(3)(4), Swami Gyanjivandas Marg, Presently Ito-20(3)(1), Vs. Dadar East, Room No.622, Mumbai – 400 014 Piramal Chambers, Pan: Acgfs8890J Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai – 400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.08.2023, 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

Anil Chothmal Patodia HUF, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 4060/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 28/09/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. In the grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the validity

The St. Sebastian Homes Co-Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 23(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4059/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S. The St. Sebastian Ito. Ward 23(3)(4) Homes Cooperative Matrumandir, Income Tax Society Ltd. Office, 3, Sebastian House, Taddeo, 42 Rebello Road, Mumbai- 400007. Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai- 400050. Pan No. Aaaat3419K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Sanghvi- C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Mahajan- Sr. A.R

Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Yashvardhan Jatia Trust, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officers CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4058/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Assessee’s Counsel withdrawn letter dated 12.04.2024For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, D.R

Section 154

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.06.2022 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Saumik Ketan Doshi, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 27(3), Mumbai

ITA 4031/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V. H. Jariwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. A.R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.09.2023 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

Shine Star, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4001/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay R. Singh- Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.09.2023 impugned herein passed by the Ld. 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

Sama Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3988/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysama Jewellery Private Dcit-8(1)(1) 6Th Floor, Limited, 313, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhawan, Off Senapati Bapat Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013. Pan No. Aaaat3419K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi – Ca : Shri Prashant Mahajan – Sr. Ar Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056140099(1) Dated 15.9.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Appellant Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Jewelry. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Appellant Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 28.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,35,53,039/- Which Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act Accepting The Returned Income. 3. In The Meantime, A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of The Appellant On 04.2.2011 & Certain Discrepancy Was Sama Jewellery Private Limited; A. Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi – CA

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Savji Karsan Chowdhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 3987/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak R. Pandya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, D.R

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 09.09.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. 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

M/S Safe Life Pharmachem Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3962/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 250Section 68

Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.10.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. 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

DCIT 19.1, Mumbai vs. Chhaya Dinesh Vora, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3846/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 28/07/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the A.Y.2012-13. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order

ITO-27(1)(5), Mumbai, Vashi Railway Station Complex vs. J R College Emps Co Op Soc, A/ - Krishna Complex

ITA 3817/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the CIT(A). Vide order dated 24/08/2023, the CIT(A) reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer; allowed Assessee’s claim for under Section 80P of the Act; and deleted the addition.

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 24/08/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2017-18, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the Assessee

DCIT, Income Tax Mumbai vs. Peacemoon Traders, Mumbai

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

ITA 3771/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147

BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate impugned order of even date 29/08/2023 passed by NFAC Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 for the A.Yrs. 2007-08 and 2009-10. 2. Since the issues are involved in both the years are exactly common

DCIT, Income Tax Mumbai vs. Peacemoon Traders, Mumbai

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

ITA 3765/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147

Mohd Maaz Ismail Patel/ Individual, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-41(4)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3730/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

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

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.08.2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short