“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

Ramappa Laxman Naduvin, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Belagavi

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

ITA 36/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramappa Laxman Naduvin Kadabi, Saundatti Belgaum 591129 Ito Vs. Karnataka Ward-5 Belagavi Pan No.Ajspr3237R Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 31.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant

Kanakadas Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Badami vs. ITO W(1) Bagalkot, Bagalkot

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

ITA 105/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17 Kanakadas Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Near Kanti Iranna Temple Ramdurga Road Ito Ward-1 Vs. Badami 587 201 Bagalkot Karnataka Pan No.Aabak7154M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17 dated 12.5.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... parte on the reason that assessee has not responded to the various notices issued to the assessee and filed no written submission before NFAC. We strongly deprecate non-cooperation attitude of assessee in non-filing the written submission before NFAC. However, in the interest of justice and equity

Luv Jit Jalan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 103/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Luv Jit Jalan No.28 & 29, Ground Floor Arihant Plaza, Kamaraj Road Ito Vs. Bangalore 560 042 Ward-1(2)(3) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No.Ailpj5661P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G.S., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 115BSection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 23.11.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the present case, the NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte on the reason that assessee has not filed any written submission before it. 3.1 It is noted that the grievance

Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashre, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1122/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashree Ito 20, Singapore Gardens Ward-3(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 062 Bangalore Pan No.Aaipn8579M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 29.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 29.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... Officer for the Assessment Year 2018-19 dated 14/03/2023, has preferred an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority viz., NFAC under the provisions of Section 246A of the Act. The Assessee is an individual and has been duly filing her obligations under the income tax act. For the assessment year

Unique Clothing Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2365/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 154(3)Section 155Section 156Section 186

Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 31.07.2023. 2. The moot issue involved in this case pertains to non-issue of notice u/s 154(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The provisions

Anjali Puri, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14C(3)Section 192Section 234BSection 270ASection 6(1)Section 9Section 90

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

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1970/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against three separate orders dated 28.02.2023 of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13. 2. The assessee has taken the following common grounds

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1969/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 21(1), Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1968/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Leapfrog, Gulmohar Park vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1774/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaleapfrog, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1), A-14, Third Floor, New Delhi. Gulmohar Park, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaatl3565D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Order : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

Date of Order : 14.02.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 06.04.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Although the assessee has raised various grounds, the only issue pertains to penalty levied under section

Arth Foundation, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3072/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arth Foundation, Vs. ITO, Ward-53(4), B-1/1691, Vasant Kunj, National Faceless Appeal Centre New Delhi-1100 70 (NFAC) ,New Delhi PAN :AAFTA7669A (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri VK Bindal, CA & Mrs. Rinki Sharma, ITP. Date ... JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 02.11.2022 for the assessment 2 year 2018-19 in denying exemption under Section 11 of the Income- Tax Act,1961 on the ground

Apl Apollo Tubes Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2971/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 06.12.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14 in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

Protoviti India Mmember P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2959/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Us, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Most Of The Employees’ Contributions To Pf & Esi Account Have Been Paid Within The Due Date, However, In Some Cases The Delay

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

hearing 12.02.2024 Date of pronouncement 14.02.2024 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order passed by NFAC of even dated 20.10.2022 for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 in relation to the adjustment made under section

Protiviti India Member P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2958/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Most Of The Employees’ Contributions To Pf & Esi Account Have Been Paid Within The Due Date, However, In Some Cases The Delay

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

Pramod Kumar Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -2(3)(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.08.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi (“CIT(A)”) whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed by the Ld. Addl. CIT Bulandsahar under section 271D

Yashashree Builders and Developers, Pune vs. Income Tax E Assessment, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 935/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.935/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Yashashree Builders & The Income Tax Officer, Developers, V Tds-3, Pune. Swami Suryakiran Society, S S.No.16/16, Vishal Nagar, Pimple Nilakh, Pune – 411027. Pan: Aabyf1726C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri C.D.Upasani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Provisions Of Section 234E Came Into Force For Periods After 01.06.2015 & They Were Not Applicable To Periods Prior To That Date.

Section 234ESection 246ASection 250

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.06.2023. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The provisions ... force for periods after 01.06.2015 and they were not applicable to periods prior to that date. 2. The Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC has erred Yashashree Builders and Developers [A] in not treating the letter from the Income Tax Officer (TDS) -3, Pune as not appealable

Shrikant Shankarrao Palande, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 872/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Hon.Shrikant Shankar Palande, Vs Ito, Ward-4, Ratnagiri. 44B, Nagawe, Alore, Chiplun, Ratnagiri-415603. Pan: Ahdpp 2733 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, DR

Section 147Section 148

Date of hearing : 12/02/2024 Date of pronouncement : 13/02/2024 ORDER This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 06.07.2023 for A.Y.2010-11. 2. In this case, assessee had not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. On verification of records ... added the same to the income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the NFAC where-also assessee remained absent. The NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. Bhattacharjee

Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle Pune, Pune

ITA 561/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Prathmesh BorkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT (DR)

Section 10(46)Section 129Section 143(3)

appeals I.T.A.Nos.560 & 561/PUN./2023, for assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017- 2018, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre’s [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din(s) and Order(s) nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050430613(1), 1050430864(1), respectively, both dated 06.03.2023, in proceedings u/sec.143(3) of the Income ... been a “notified” authority u/sec.10(46)(c) of the Act which forms the precise reason for the Assessing Officer as well as the NFAC to decline the same. The very factual position has continued before us as well. 3.1. Learned counsel at this stage informed us that the assessee

Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle Pune, Pune

ITA 560/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Prathmesh BorkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT (DR)

Section 10(46)Section 129Section 143(3)

Tulsidas Kanayalal Soneji, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 1437/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Hon.Tulsidas Kanayalal Soneji, Vs Ito, Ward-8(3), A-1 Market, Sai Chowk, Pune. Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan: Abzps 0978 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare, Adv., Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2024 Order

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, DR

Section 148Section 194ASection 194lSection 69A

Date of hearing : 12/02/2024 Date of pronouncement : 13/02/2024 ORDER This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 30.10.2023 for A.Y.2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from selling of optical products under ... which was brought to tax u/sec. 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the NFAC contending that he explained all the sources of cash deposits made in the current account, which were out of his business receipts. The NFAC