“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

Om Raj Rajeshwari Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 613/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 10.08.2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after referred to as"NFAC"] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances ... case, the ld. CIT(A) NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without providing the reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit its submission. 2 Om Raj Rajeshwari Jewellers vs. ITO 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order CIT (A) NFAC erred in dismissing

Farman Khan, Chaksu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 31-07-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Rudrax Shine Logistic Private Limited, Bundi vs. ITO Ward Bundi, Bundi

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

ITA 581/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 40Section 68

filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 15.05.2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after referred to as"NFAC"] for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Rudrax Shine Logistic ... which the assessee has 4 Rudrax Shine Logistic Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO filed the appeal before the CIT(A)-Kota, which later transferred to NFAC. The NFAC has passed the Exparty order on dt. 15.05.2023. The order was received on portal on dt. 15.05.2023, which was not served upon

Kishan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 558/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69C

filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 30.06.2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after referred to as "NFAC"] for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On facts and in the circumstances

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 17/08/2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2017-18 which in turn arise from the order dated 02.01.2020 passed under section 143(3) of the Income

Edelweiss Asset Management Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3020/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule , Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 154Section 25tSection 270ASection 37(1)

contrary and facts and law, beyond jurisdiction and accordingly, is liable to be set aside. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. NFAC be declared as bad- in-law and be quashed. Disallowance of Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenditure: On the facts and circumstance of case ... NFAC erred in exceeding its Jurisdiction under section 25t of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') while enhancing the income/reducing the loss of the Appellant to the extent of ESOP expenditure of Rs. 2,04,91,503/- Without Prejudice to Ground No.2, 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

Global Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Previous-ITO-20(1)(5), Present-Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 2939/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. ShethFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 30/06/2023, 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 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

Neptunus Power Plant Services Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2666/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2021-22

Section 115BSection 139Section 143

Order Per Prashant Maharishi AM 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee / appellant against the appellate order passed by National faceless appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (the learned CIT – A) for assessment year 2021 – 22 on 31/05/2023. 02. By This appellate order appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation ... India organics Private Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner of income tax in ITA number 889/MUL/2022 dated 26/7/2022 and Bholanath precision engineering private limited versus CIT, NFAC in ITA number 1997/M/2022 dated 23/11/2022 wherein it was held that filing of form number 10 IC is mandatory to avail the alternate tax provisions

Atc Global Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 14A

Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 25.05.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2 ATC Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2. The issues contended by the assessee to various grounds of appeal pertain to disallowance made

National Commodities Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2315/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jay Dharod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2014-15 on the grounds inter-alia that

Idana Pet Industries P. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 330/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

Banerjee, Hon’ble J.M.: Both the appeals of the same assessee were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys

Idana Pet Industries P. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 329/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commiissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 267/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Jaika Automobiles & Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj3178K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj4462A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’) Dated 15.03.2022 & 23.12.2021 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.267/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’) dated 15.03.2022 and 23.12.2021 for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved ... paid before due date for filing Return of Income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions

Malu Paper Mills Limited, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-4(1), Nagpur

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 266/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07-06-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19. 2. We note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 26 days. After hearing ld. DR, we condone

M/S. Jaika Automobiles and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 193/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Ashok Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3040/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 234BSection 271A

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.09.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred

Seed Edu Corp (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 2376/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Maneesh Upneja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 21.06.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under :- “1. The assessment order dated 19th, December

Savannah Seeds Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1471/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Time Barring Date, While Form 3Cl Was Duly Issued Within Such Period By Dsir. 4. The Neac & Nf Ac Failed To Appreciate That Delay In Issue Of Form 3Cl By Dsir Was Owing To Surge In Covid-19 Cases, Which Further Lead To Delay On Appellant'S Part To Submit Form 3Cl To Income Tax Office During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Uppal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 35Section 35(2)

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 15.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under :- 1. On the facts and circumstances ... Order passed by National e-Assessment Centre ('NeAC') and National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NF AC') is bad in law. 2 2. That NeAC and NFAC grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of weighted deduction of expenditure on scientific research amounting

Lucknow Sitapur Expressways Limited, Delhi vs. JCIT, Range -75 TDS, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2987/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

Section 133Section 201(1)Section 206Section 206CSection 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(c)Section 285B

BALAGANESH AM, This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in Appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/10060363 against the order passed by JCIT, Range-75, New Delhi (hereinafter referred

Reynold Events & Promotions, Nuvem vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Margao

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

ITA 49/PAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora

Section 143(3)

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 31.01.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business ... books of account on the failure of the assessee to reconcile the difference. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC. During the course of proceedings before the NFAC, it is contended that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of alleged difference between the amount shown