“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

Mrs. Meena Mangilal Sharma ( Wife and Legal Heir of Late Mr. Mangilal C. Sharma), Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 271FSection 273B

Hearing 17/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 17/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by NFAC Delhi in relation to the penalty levied u/s.271F for A.Y.2016-17. 2. Assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.5000/- for delay in filing of return

Birju Mahesh Patel, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, National Faceless Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1256/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Parvathy Ganesh, Ld. ACFor Respondent: Shri. Suresh Gaikwad, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

preferred this appeal against the order dated 10.02.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34 / 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 the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide

Dilip Kumar Nanda, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Bhubaneswar

In the result, Stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 21/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwals.A. No.4/Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mr Dilip Kumar Nanda, Plot Mr Dilip Kumar Nanda, Plot Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2(4), No.A-20, 20, Hig Hig Duplex, Duplex, Bubaneswar Bubaneswar Phase-Ii, Ii, Pokhariput, Pokhariput, Po: Po: Palashpalli, Bhubaneswar. Palashpalli, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aafpn 4306 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /07/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Natabar PandaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), A), NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 10.11.2022 10.11.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047218704(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Shri Natabar ... Kumar Nanda, Plot No.A-20, HIG Duplex, Phase-II, Pokhariput, PO: Palashpalli, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: , ITO WARD-2(4), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Bubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Manju Choraria, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Cuttack

In the result, Stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 179/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agarwalgirish Agarwals.A. No.8/Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manju Manju Choraria, Choraria, Plot Plot Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2(3), No.729, No.729, Abhhisek Abhhisek Bhubaneswar Ubaneswar Apartment, Apartment, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Abkpc 9390 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda Natabar Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /07/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1050909482 23/1050909482(1) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Natabar Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Natabar Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Natabar Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Natabar PandaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi A), NFAC, Delhi dated 17.3.2023 in Appeal No.ITBA ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050909482 23/1050909482(1) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Shri Natabar Panda, ld AR appeared ... Appellant : Manju Choraria, Plot No.729, Abhhisek Apartment, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Respondent: , ITO WARD-2(3), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC,Delhi Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Inderjit Kaur Shah, Chndigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 ( 2), Jalandhar

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

ITA 83/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.83/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250oSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was 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 I.T.A. No.83/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year

Shri Rajan Sharma C/O Meek Enterprises, Phagwara vs. Income Tax Officer, Phagwara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250rSection 41(1)Section 68

Mr Ruder Mani Walia, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (3), Jalandhar

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

ITA 257/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250oSection 48

JCIT Spl. Range-12, New Delhi vs. Arihanta Industries, Delhi

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

ITA 963/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 131Section 68Section 801CSection 80I

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R

Addi. CIT Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7339/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 7339/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Acit, Vs. M/S. Ebony Retail Holdings Special Range-3, Ltd. New Delhi F-2/1, Khanpur Extension, New Delhi-110062 Pan : Aaacd0207B Appellant Respondent

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

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

appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045313667(1), dated 8/9/2022 & 3 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045313683(1), dated 8/9/2022 arising out of the orders passed U/s. 143(1) of the Income ... ACIT is extracted herein below for reference: “1….. 2….. 3…. 4. I submit that copy of the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was received in the office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam herein on 8/9/2022. The last date for filing of the appeal

Ruth Mamidi, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.03/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Ruth Mamidi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3-45 Ananthapalli, Ward-1, Ramalayam Veedhi, Nallajerla Tadepalligudem, Mandal, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Andhra Pradesh – 534111. Pan: Cxmpm 2888 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 17/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043242493(1), dated 30/05/2022 arising out of the order passed U/s. 144 of the 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], dated 19/12/2019 ... income returned by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC considered the submissions of the assessee and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by granting relief

Kosuru Saratchandra Gopikrishna, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kosuru Sarathchandra Gopikrishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.16-370/1 Ward-4(3) Skml Nagar, Arilova Colony Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Btbpk1506Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 271

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049786366(1) dated 15.02.2023, arising out of assessment order passed u/s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

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

Grand Motors, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 167/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 167/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Grand Motors Nh-200, Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Aakfg6077H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 40

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 29.07.2022, which in turn arises from the intimation issued by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC)/AO under Sec. 143(1) of the Income

M.R. Construction, Kanker vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

ITA 142/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M.R Construction Main Road, Near Masjid, Kanker (C.G.)-494 334 Pan : Aajfm8651Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 147

captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 02.06.2022 & 06.06.2022, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O. under Sec. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income

M.R. Construction, Kanker vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

ITA 141/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 147

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. The ACIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. ACIT (NFAC) Plot No.A-43, Phase-II, Delhi MIDC Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCB 2304 E Assessee by Shri Sukhsagar Syal

Bhim Singh, Kota vs. DCIT, C-2, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 90/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Sh. R. S. Meel (JCIT)

Section 143Section 154Section 24Section 250

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 30/12/2022 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2014-15 which in turn arise from the order dated 30.06.2020 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT

Mukesh Pathak, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 295/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271F

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming penalty ... been committed it is purely of technical nature. Penalty may be deleted. 2 MUKESH PATHAK VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271B. Penalty is imposable on the basis of sales, turnover gross receipt whereas