“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

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 5740/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai vs. The Bank Nova Scotia, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5634/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

The Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and

ITA 8841/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

The ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. the Bank of Novascotia, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4655/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

Page 1 11 Appeals The Bank of Novascotia Vs. ADIT(IT) 3(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I

Aryans Buildwell P.Lytd, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon

ITA 1808/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usindus Towers Ltd, Vs. Assistant Director Of 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity Income Tax, Cpc, Building No. 10, Tower- Bangalore, A, Dlf Qe So, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcb0274F

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 250

BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order u/s 250, of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.06.2023. 2. At the outset the Ld. AR requested for withdrawal of the appeal preferred by it and took our attention to letter dated

DCIT, CC Gzbd, Gzbd U.P vs. East View Developers Private Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1806/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Vs. East View Developers Cc Private Ltd. Ghaziabad 305, Nirmal Tower, Barakhamba Road, Central, Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aabce5324E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Kanpur-4 Dated 06.09.2021 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :-

Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 1443/PUN/2023[A.Y.2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1443/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Laxmi Babu Debnath Level-3, Riverside Business Bay, Wellesley Road, Nr. Rto, Pune Pan : Acypd2630F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde

Section 144Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)

filed u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’] by the assessee challenging the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057451809(1) dt. 27/10/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act. 2. We deem fit to condone duly explained two days delay in instating ... Pune ITA No.1443/PUN/2023 AY 2010-11 3. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR Mr Khandelwal submitted that, the Ld. NFAC dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine owning to non-condonation of 86 days delay in instituting u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. Solidifying the fact of delay

Nilesh Bhagwan Londhe, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1272/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016- 2017, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057085226(1), dated 16.10.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income ... parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 I.T.A.No.1272/PUN./2023 1. “The CIT(A) NFAC (hereinafter called as learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of cost of development expenses amounting to Rs.30

Indovation Renewables Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 11/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Indovation Renewables Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 16(3), Plot No.16, 1St Floor, Srila Hyderabad. Realty Layout, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Telangana. Pan : Aabcm3678G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, Appeared For Shri Sk. Gupta, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, appeared for Shri Sk. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.28.11.2023 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA No.11 /Hyd/2024 2. The grounds raised ... towards land lease. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal, which was later migrated to the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Before us, ld.AR submitted that though the assessee explained the reasons for delay before the ld.CIT

Smt.Renuka Jana, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 991/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in brevity ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 31.07.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year ... Renuka Jana, C/o. M/s. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700 072. 2. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //// By order

Satyendra Kumar Dhawan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(4), Kolkata.

ITA 800/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 148Section 50C(1)

assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Satyendra Kumar Dhawan National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.06.2023 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Though the assessee has taken 10 grounds of appeal but his grievance revolves around two issues, namely

Ajit Kumar Patni, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 705/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

Sonjoy Sarma, JM: The above captioned appeals are filed by the assessee directed against two separate orders dated 17.05.2023 by ld. CIT(A), NFAC relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 respectively. 2. Since the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical to each other ... case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that in view and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (APPEAL) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and confirming the addition of LTCG alleged to be bogus

Ajit Kumar Patni, Kolkata vs. It0, WD-28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 704/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

Durga Properties, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee directed against two separate orders dated 22.09.2023 by ld. CIT(A), NFAC for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively arising out of two separate assessment orders passed by the ld. AO. 2. The ld. AR appeared

Durga Properties., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1253/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Daisy Technosoft Pvt.Ltd. (Now Dream Buildhome Pvt. Ltd), Kolkata vs. Otp, Ward-2(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1047/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Daisy Technosoft Pvt. Ltd. (Now Dream Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.09.2023 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal but in brief, the first preliminary grievance ... Officer, Ward-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 (3)Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (4) CIT- , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Om Enclave(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1038/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 132(4)

assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. 2. At the outset the ld. AR brought to our knowledge that a new development has taken

Neyveli Educational Trust, Panruti vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for defects

ITA 925/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Neyveli Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer- 1, Kellakollai, (Exemptions), Kumbakonam Main Road, Ward-2, Marungur Post, Chennai. Panruti-607 103. [Pan: Aaatn 8515 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 143(3)

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.08.2022, and pertains to assessment year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust filed

Unishire Promoters Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 880/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17 Unishire Promoters Pvt. Ltd. No.42, Cstle Street Ashok Nagar Acit Vs. Bangalore 560 025 Circle-7(1)(1) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No : Aabcu2654G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Gowi Trasi, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac Dated 12.9.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Gowi Trasi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 37

Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC dated 12.9.2023 for the assessment year 2016-17 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... revenue operations 4. Commission consultancy expenses 99,27,381/- disallowed 10,37,04,829/- Total 2.1. On appeal, the NFAC has given various notices to the assessee on following dates: Sl.No. Notice Due date of reply Reply issued on submitted by the appellant 1. 27.01.2021 11.02.2021 No response

Torenooru Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Madikeri

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

ITA 874/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramnian S., D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 69ASection 80A

Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 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 11.9.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following ... appellant. Thus, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Without prejudice to ground 1 and 2, the NFAC ought to have decided the case on merits based on the statement of facts and grounds of appeal furnished in the form