“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

Veetil Kizhakke Nirmal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(6), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, G., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 192BSection 270A

Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], dated 28.11.2023 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act in both the appeals

Veetil Kizhakke Nirmal, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(6), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, G., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 192BSection 270A

Trimbak Konher Patil, Hubblli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

ITA 6/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Trimbak Konher Patil, Hubballi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

ITA 5/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Vinay Kulkarni, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Kohinoor Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-31(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3697/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhkohinoor Industrial Vs. Ito, Ward 31(2)(2), Premises Co-Op Society Kautilya Bhavan, Limited, Plot No.10, Cts Bandra, No. 67, Dindoshi Village, Mumbai – 400 051 Western Express Highway Goregaon East Maharashtra – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaak4970G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Kirit S. Sanghvi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 11.07.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Ctt(A) [Nfac, Delhi] Erred On Facts & In Law In Disallowing Rs.22,92,110/-Claimed As Deduction Under S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act 2. The Learned Cit(A) [Nfac, Delhi] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Order Passed Under S 154 Of The Act By Holding That There Was No Mistake Apparent From The Records 3. The Learned Cit(A) (Nfac, Delhi) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The View Of The Cpc That The Appellant Did Not Correctly Fill In Sch-Via For Claiming Deduction Under S 80P. Relief Claimed: The Appellant Be Allowed Deduction Of Rs.22,92,110/- Under S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Kirit S. SanghviFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 11.07.2023 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The learned CTT(A) [NFAC, Delhi] erred on facts ... disallowing Rs.22,92,110/-claimed as deduction under s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 2. The learned CIT(A) [NFAC, Delhi] erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under s 154 of the Act by holding that there was no mistake apparent from the records

Upinder Kaur Khalsa Rao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3670/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: 27.02.2024

Section 148Section 2(24)

Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 14.08.2023 for the AY 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “a) On the facts and circumstances ... case, and in Law, the CITA, NFAC erred In confirming addition made by the Income Tax Officer 35(3)(1), Mumbai (The AO.) amounting to of Rs. 17,83,500/- towards proportionate 1/3 share of Rs. 50,00,000/-received on account of hardship compensation. b) On the facts

Mr Vicky Murli Advani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Tax) Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3664/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhmr. Vicky Murli Advani Vs. Income Tax Officer, T3-3202, Runval Greens, International Tax, Rosewood, Near Fortis Ward1(1)(1), Hospital, Mulund Room No. 1817A, 18Th Goregaon Link Road, Floor, Air India Bldg. Mulund West- 400 078 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Agypa7741A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajesh Sanghvi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024

For Appellant: Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Manoj Kumar Chandrama Prasad Vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(1) vide ITA No. 191/Mum/2023. v. Mr. Rajesh Prabhudas Parekh Vs. CIT(A), ITO NFAC, Delhi ITA No.25/Mum/2023 (AY: 2010-11) P a g e | 5 Mr. Vicky Murli Advani Vs. ITO, IT, Ward 1(1)(1) vi. Shri Mahendra Lalka

Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 3413/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhbharat Laxman Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), Bhiwapurkar, 204, Room No. 14, B Wing, Oxford, Regency Heights, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Azad Nagar, Kolshet, Road No. 16Z, Wagle, Thane - 400602 Ind. Estate, Thane-400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abnpb8487A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Subodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 03.08.2023 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Hon. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Inspite Of The Fact That There Was No Incriminating Material Pertaining To The Appellant With Regards To Alleged On-Money Paid For Purchase Of Flat From Cosmos Group & Therefore The Re-Opening Was In Absence Of Any Independent & Valid Belief On The Part Of The Id Ao That Any Income Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment. The Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Being Bad-In-Law, The Asst. Order Flowing Therefrom, Being The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Is Also Invalid & Bad In Law & Hence The Same May Be Quashed 2. The Hon Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 31,00,000/-, U/S 69 Of The 1.1 Act, 1961, As Unexplained Investment Towards Alleged On- Money Paid Towards Purchase Of Flat No. A-07, 7Th Floor, Twilight, Cosmos Horizon, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (W) To Cosmos Group, Ignoring The Contentions Of The Appellant That There Was No Incriminating

For Appellant: Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 03.08.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding re-opening of assessment

Jeetendra Singh Rathore, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyajeetendra Singh Rathore, Vs. Ito Ward 2 (2), 15/4, Acacia Vatika City, Gurgaon. Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 003 (Haryana).

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

Date of Order : 04.03.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 13.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Uttarakhand Sheep and Wool Development Board, Dehradun

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

ITA 3289/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Admitting Additional Evidence As Regards To

For Appellant: Shri Pavitra Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(b)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144B

ITA No.- 3289/Del/2023 Uttarakhand Sheep and Wool Development Board. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI DR. BRR

Prem Raj Bhadana, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 3266/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 143(3)

ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM, The aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year

G A Advisory Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3265/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)

ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM, The aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year ... warrant interference of appellate authority. In this manner the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) of NFAC. 10. After hearing both the parties on perusal of materials on record placed before us in the paper book, we find that the assessee had shown cash

Hi Tech Grain Processing Private Limited - in Liquidation, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3252/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 144(3)

ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM, The aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the quantum of assessment passed under section 144(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year

Dharamvir Singh Hooda, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Panipat

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

ITA 2923/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyadharamvir Singh Hooda, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, 174, Wadhawa Ram Colony, Panipat. Tehsil Camp, Panipat – 132 103 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaiph9491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date Of Order : 04.03.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Date of Order : 04.03.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 19.08.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, I note that order of the AO as well as order

Deepak Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2272/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Bhargva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals by the assessee against the respective orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 12.06.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15 confirming the quantum addition and penalty sustenance by the ld. CIT (A). 2. Grounds of appeal taken

Deepak Enterprises, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-32, New Delhi

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

ITA 2263/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Bhargva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Pawan Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1194/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Bhadauria, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.03.2024 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 24.02.2023 by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining ... each default, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- totaling to Rs. 50,000/-. This action of the AO was upheld by the NFAC. 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that only two notices were sent on the address given in the PAN data base

Rajendra Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM, The aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 13.12.2022, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year

Avery Dennison (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Sahani, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice President Dr. B. R

ACIT, Circle- 24(1), New Delhi vs. Span India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6451/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 14(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R