“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

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Kadatoka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Nos.115 & 117/PAN/2022 and ITA Nos.40 & 42/PAN/2023 preferred by the assessee(s) emanates from the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, ‘NFAC’], Delhi, dated 19/07/2022 ITA Nos. 40 & 42/PAN/2023 Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh & Ors. for A.Y.2017-18; dated 28/09/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19; dated 20/12/2022

Directorate of Health Services Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 115/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Nyt, Ingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 113/PAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

New Era Shipping Ltd, Marmugao vs. ITO, Ward - 2(3), Panaji

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

ITA 28/PAN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) New Era Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito Ward-2(3), Flat No.2, Dr. Mukund Bldg., Panaji. 1St Floor, F.L. Gomes Road, Mormugao, South Goa, Goa. Pan: Aabcn 7724 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.E. Robinson, Adv. Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 19.08.2021 For A.Y. 2012-13 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Restricting Deduction Of Outstanding Expenses Consisting Of Salary To Staff For The Month Of March, 2012 Duly Paid In April, 2012 (Rs. 2,86,868/-)”

For Appellant: Shri D.E. Robinson, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 19.08.2021 for A.Y. 2012-13 as per the following grounds of appeal:- “The ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting deduction of outstanding expenses consisting of salary to staff ... following year. The AO had disallowed 100% of the outstanding expenses on the ground that details were not furnished during the assessment proceedings. The NFAC in its order observed categorically that nothing further brought on record and there is also lapse incompliance on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, NFAC

Bethany Seva Sangam, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur

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

ITA 72/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.72/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bethany Seva Sangam C/O. Bethany College Of Nursing, Borsi, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aaaab0776D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 272ASection 272A(2)(e)

present appeal filed by the assessee trust is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 04.01.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. under Sec. 272A(2)(e) of the Income

Saroj Gopal Educational Society, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption (Ward-2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations above

ITA 19/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Saroj Gopal Educational Society, 137, New Civic Centre, Bhilai Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan: Aadas6074L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

present appeal filed by the assessee society is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.11.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. under Sec. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ... declined, the A.O rejected the application filed by the assessee society. 6. The assessee society being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Exemption), NFAC has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders

Manishkumar Kanubhai Kachchhi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 417/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Manishkumar Kanubhai Kachchhi, I.T.O. C-101, Silver Nest, Near Siler Ward -2(3)2, Vs. Chowk, Yogi Chock To Puna Road, Surat Punagam, Surat. Pan No. Anypk 5830 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 69

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (NFAC / ld. CIT(A)) dated 19.04.2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, which in turn arise against the assessment order dated 11.12.2018 passed under section 144 r.w.s

Amrita Gem Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1& 2 of the appeal are allowed

ITA 181/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Amrita Gem Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O. 405, Devratna Apartment, Char Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. Khana Chakla, Rampura Main Road, Surat. Surat-395006 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aahca 8682 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 68

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 01/02/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds ... appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 53,21,482/- towards cash deposits made during demonetization period by the appellant, as unexplained/unaccounted income without considering the fact that the appellant has received the cash

Mohan Lal Hargovind Das Bidi Uyduog Private Limited, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 1/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

I.T.A. No.01/JAB/2023 Assessment year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE

Adarsh Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. ITO, 2(2), Jabalpur

ITA 92/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The Id. Counsel for the assessee sought the permission of the Bench to withdraw the appeal ... ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The Id. Counsel for the assessee sought the permission of the Bench to withdraw the appeal

Khalid Sayed, Delhi vs. Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 706/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Akash KumarFor Respondent: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 250Section 54

Choudhry, JM: The Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 13.12.2022 impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short „Ld. Commissioner)‟} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short „the Act‟). 2. In this case, the Assessee jointly and equally with

Mr Sukesh Vinod Goel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 518/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Mr. Sukesh Vinod Goel, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.22, Link Way Estate, Ward 9(3)(4), New Link Road, Malad (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai 400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepg0153E Assessee By : Mr. Mahaveer Jain, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Rajsingh Meel, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Mahaveer Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Rajsingh Meel, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143Section 40Section 68

detailed submission dated 20th February, 2019 before the learned CIT (A) but same has not been considered at all. Later on appeals migrated to NFAC. 07. Even on the merit he submitted that a. with respect to non-deduction of tax at source the assessee has paid the interest

Shubh Exports, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assesseestands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1808/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & M/S. Shubh Exports Cit 407 Panchratna Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Mama Parmanand Vs. Mumbai 400020 Marg, Opera House Mumbai 400004 Pan – Aagfs6889M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Ms. Ekta Aagam Sanghavi, Ld. Ca Respondent By: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023/07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.08.2023

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Aagam Sanghavi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. DR

Section 250

Assessee against the orders dated 06.03.2023 and 07.03.2023, impugned herein passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (in short ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AYs 2012-13 and 2007-08). 2 M/s. Kunnummakkara

Shubh Exports, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assesseestands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1807/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Aagam Sanghavi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. DR

Section 250

DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd (Now Merged With Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1796/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 45Section 80G

conclusion is supported by various judgements as under- i. In the case of Marsh Mclennan Global Services India Private Limited Vs AU, ITD, NFAC [ITA No. 2452/MUM/2022] [A.Y. 2018-19] [Date of order 27.12.2022], Hon'ble ITAT, Mumabi has held that even though deduction for CSR Expenses was not allowable

DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd (Now Merged With Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1795/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 45Section 80G

Krystal Integrated Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1678/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 431

PADMAVATHY S. (AM) These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)[in short, the Ld.CIT(A)] dated 15/03/2023 for assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since the issue contended in both the appeals are similar, there

Krystal Integrated Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1677/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 431

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Yaari Digital Integrated Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue standsdismissed

ITA 1553/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrydcit, Central Circle - 6(4) M/S. Yaari Digital Integarted Room No. 1925, 1St Floor Services Ltd. Air India Building Plot No. 448-451, Phase-V Vs. Nariman Point Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Mumbai 400021 (Haryana) 122016 Pan – Aabci7129N Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Ld. Cit-Dr Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Assessee against the order dated 16.02.2023 impugned herein passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (in short ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for AY 2018-19. 2. In the instant case

The Cathedral Vidya Trust, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Exemption, Cir-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1483/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrythe Cathedral Vidya Trust Acit (Exemption), Cicle-1 06, Pushottamdas Thakurdas 6Th Floor, Mtnl Telephone Vs. Marg, G.P.O. Cumballa Hills, Poddar Road, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai Pan – Aabtt5706B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Viral Shah, Ld. Ca Respondent By: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Viral Shah, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

Assessee against the order dated 09.03.2023 impugned herein passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17. 2. In this case, the Assessee