“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

Abhudaya Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3747/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Abhyudaya Co- Vs. Commissioner of operative Bank Ltd. Income Tax-Appeals Ground Floor, K.K. NFAC, New Delhi Tower Abhyudaya Bank Lane Off. Dr. Ambedkar Marg Parel Village Mumbai-400 012 PAN/GIR No.AAAAA0300L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Keshav Bhujle Revenue ... AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 15/09/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2018-19. 2 Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2. In various grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the disallowance / addition

Jagdish Kaniyalal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3649/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68Section 69

present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 11/08/2023, 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 partly allowed the appeal

Income Tax Officer - 42(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kinjal Manish Seth, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2883/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: giving relief to the assessee? 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is an importer/dealer in industrial and commercial goods. For the

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KalyaniFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 609CSection 69C

present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 11/08/2023, 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 2018-19, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal

Metro Stone Crusher Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2682/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Metro Stone Crusher Private Ltd., Vs Ito, Baganwala Zone, Khanak Tosham, New Delhi-110002. Bhiwani, Haryana-127021. Pan-Aafcm4794H Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2024 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”), New Delhi Dated 24.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Attended The Proceedings On Behalf Of The Assessee. It Is Seen From The Records That No One Attended The Proceedings Since 22.01.2024. Further, It Is Noticed That Registry Has Recorded A Defect That The Appeal Memo Is Not Signed By The Assessee Despite Issuance Of Notice In This Regard.

BHARAT, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), New Delhi dated 24.07.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee

Vikash Daga, Gurghaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1812/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Daga, Vs Dcit, D-022, The Belaire, Circle 3(1), Golf Course Road, Gurgaon. Dlf V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Adipd4214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kachhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2017-18/10084687 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kachhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 90

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.05.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10084687 arising out of the appeal before it against ... from double taxation on the same income. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, neither the Ld. AO nor the CIT (A), NFAC has not disputed the allowability of the foreign tax credit under 128 of Income Tax as the assessee has fulfilled all of the remaining conditions

Prahladbhai Karsanbhai Patel, Himatnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Himatanagar

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

ITA 88/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Prahladbhai Karsanbhai Patel Ito, Ward-3 At & Po, Hajipur Vs Himatnagar 383 001 Himatnagar Sabarkantha Gujarat 383 120 Pan : Ddkpp 6179 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Arti N. Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. True Sparrow Systems Pvt Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 994/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Center (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 12.10.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. Whether

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 694/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 25.07.2023 passed for A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 693/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 692/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 691/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 690/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

Amitkumar S. Solanki, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Godhra

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

ITA 456/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 456/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18) Amitkumar S Solanki The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 63, Narayan Green Ward - 2, Godhra Vs. Banglows, Sama Savli Road, Vadodra - 390024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bnips7919E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Palak Pavagadhi, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2017- 18 Declaring An Income Of Rs.49,44,188/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 20.03.2019 & While Processing The Return An Addition Of Rs.25,99,845/- Was Made In Respect Of Unpaid Employees’ Contribution To Epf/Esi U/S.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.11.2022 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017- 18 declaring an income of Rs.49

The Jt. CIT(OSD) (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Tapti Valley Education Foundation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DRFor Respondent: None

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Center (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 16.02.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “(i) Whether

M/S. Theo Pharma Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1120/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1002/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate

Section 115J

Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Center (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 09.10.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That

Dhanlaxmi Gramin Biagar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 398/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/ 1059828192(1), dated 17.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... fact 2 ITA.No.398/PUN./2024 Dhanlaxmi Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., A.Y. 2018-19 rejected the impugned sec.80P deduction as upheld in the “NFAC” order. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the department side. 4. In view of the foregoing factual backdrop, the clinching issue which arises

Maulikripa Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(4), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 397/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

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

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1) “The learned CITA NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation even though the assessee had filed the appeal late only by 5 days and the delay ... reasonable cause. 2 ITA.No.397/PUN./2024 2) The case may be restored to the file of the CITA NFAC to be decided on merits. 3) The learned CITA NFAC erred in sustaining an addition of Rs.2,45,7797- being interest earned on Fixed Deposits with Bank of Maharashtra which were

Shankar Nagappa Jadagouda, Kolhapur vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 381/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 147Section 148

MEMBER I.T.A.No.381/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2010-2011 Mr. Shankar Nagappa Jadagouda, Door No.127, The National Faceless Appeal Kalamba Road, HUDCO Centre [“NFAC”]. Colony, Kolhapur-416 012. vs. Delhi Maharashtra. PAN AELPJ7163G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta Date of Hearing ... Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1059127891(1), dated 28.12.2023, involving proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Azam Ali Khan, Pune vs. Income Tax Offficer Ward 11(1) Pune, Pune

ITA 331/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)

Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1054459557(1), dated 19.07.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income