“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

ITO, Thane vs. Rajendra Hastimal Mehta, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2400/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito, Ward – 2(1), Vs. Shri Rajendrahastimal Room No. 25, B-Wing Mehta (Huf), 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Flat No.101/102, Wagle Industrial Estate, C-62, Sector-5, Shanti Thane (W)-400604, Nagar, Mira Road (E), Maharashtra. Thane-401107, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Aaahr4446M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rajendra.H.Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .G.J. Ninawe.Sr. DR

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi/CIT(A) passed u/sec143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/sec 250 of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in circumstances

Shri Sanjiv Vishwanath Rungta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1852/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Toprani & MsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhandra Mahjan. Sr.DR

Section 69A

BENCH: These are the three appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi /CIT (A) passed u/sec 143(3) and U/sec 250 of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there

Mrs Pushpa R. Chawla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(5), Mumabi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 2864/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemrs. Pushpa R. Chawla V. Ito-Ward-23(2)(5) 143/B Wing, Nibbana Chs Room No. 116, 1St Floor Pali Hill Road, Bandra West Matru Mandir, Tardeo Mumbai- 400051 Mumbai- 400007

Section 143(2)Section 148

appellant is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal and raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in adding INR 52,88,045/-. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, erred ... action of Ld. Assessing Officer in adding INR 52,88,045/-, as income from other sources. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in adding INR 52,88,045/-, without reducing the amount of compensation already offered

Wise Human Being Foundation, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2014/DEL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Filing The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratal Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhayay, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

Date of Order : 01.11.2023 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 12.05.2023 pertaining to assessment year 2022-23. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That the learned National Faceless ... Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without granting any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and hence the order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is unsustainable in law. 2. That learned NFAC

Shreemangal Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd, Raigarh vs. ACIT-2(1), Bilaspur

ITA 268/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 268/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shreemangal Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Kailash Chandra Agrawal, Station Road, Kharsia, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 661 Pan : Aajcs0895F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 02.06.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

Nanakchand Agrawal, L/H of Kalawati Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 180/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 180/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nanakchand Agrawal L/H Of Kalawati Agrawal, Near Telephone Tower, Dhamtari, Baster Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan : Achpa6904A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.K Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

legal heirs of the assessee (since deceased) is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.03.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) both dated 04/08/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. In ITA No. 584/Srt/2023 ... filed similar application for condonation of delay of 270 days in both the appeals, on similar set of facts/similar plea. The ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC in such both the appeals in appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050429536(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2022-23 /1050429413(1) both dated 06/03/2023 condoned the similar delay. However, on similar

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Sri Bibekananda Sahu, L/H. of Late Sahadeb Sahu, Ganjam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Berhampur

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

ITA 284/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.284/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Sahadeb Sahu (Deceased) Vs Ito, Ward-2, Berhampur Represented By The Legal Heir Sri Bibekananda Sahu, At:Banadevipatna, Po:Kabisurya Nagar Dist : Ganjam-761104 Pan No. :Bmzps 2543 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 03.08.2023, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054834789(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Being Heard To The Assessee, Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was Also The Submission That The Ld. Ao Has Also Estimated The Profit Rejecting The Book Result Of The Assessee Without Examining The Material Available Before Him. It Was The Submission The Issues In This Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication & The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity To Provide The Materials Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Substantiate Its Claim.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 03.08.2023, passed in I.T.Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054834789(1) for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. It was the submission of the ld. AR that

SHI vs. Amarth Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2707/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)Section 8O

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders dated 28.06.2023, 20.07.2023, 28.06.2023 and 30.06.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre („NFAC‟)/ the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short „ld. Commissioner for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act'), pertaining

SHI vs. Amarth Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2706/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)Section 8O

SHI vs. Amarth Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2705/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)Section 8O

SHI vs. Amarth Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2704/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)Section 8O

Sohanlal Motilal Jain, Borivali vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri.Narendra Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Prakash Rastogi. Ld

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Choudhry (JM): This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22/05/21023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, Ld. Commissioner] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {in short

Asmita Abhishek Co-Op Hsg Soc Limited, Mumbai vs. CPC ITO, 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2490/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & S Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Asmita Abhishek Co-Op बिधम/ Cpc/Ito-24(1)(1) 3Rd Floor, Piramal Society Ltd. Vs. 1, M/S. Asmita Abhishek Chambers Lalbaugh, Co-Op Society Ltd., Mumbai-400034. Opp To Dalmiya College, Sunder Nagar, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaaa6326N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. R. Agrawal Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order Without Hearing The Assessee & Also Without Going Into The Merits Of The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By It.

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 28.06.2023 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has passed an ex-parte

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2463/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2462/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर

Vikrant Kiritkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(7), Earnest House Nariman Point

ITA 2421/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Narang, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter-alia that

Blue Rose Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2227/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryblue Rose Industrial Premises Cit(A), Co-Op. Society Limited Nfac, 43, Blue Rose Industrial Delhi-110 001 Premises Co-Op. Society Limited Vs. Wester Express Highway, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 068

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha V. Nair, Ld. DR

Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Blue Rose Industrial Premises CIT(A), Co-op. Society Limited NFAC, 43, Blue Rose Industrial Delhi-110 001 Premises Co-op. Society Limited Vs. Wester Express Highway, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 068 PAN/GIR No. AAAAB ... Choudhry, J M: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31.05.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre („NFAC‟ for short)/ the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short „ld. Commissioner) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act'), pertaining