“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

Rahul Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO-TDS, Ward-2, Surat

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

ITA 8/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rahul Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Tds, Ward-2, 4026-27, World Trade Centre, Surat. Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Pan : Aadcr5890F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)Section 3

directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] / Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 20.12.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case

Rajkamal Construction, Forth Songadh, Tapi vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bardoli, Surat

In the result, ground no.1, 2 and 4 of the appeal are allowed

ITA 1/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rajkamal Construction, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Opp. Paratha House, At Post: Bardoli. Vankvel, Tal: Forth Songadh, Dist: Tapi, 394670. Pan : Aahfr2719Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 69C

directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] / Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 22.11.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. The Ld. Faceless CIT(A) has erred

Nareshbhai Vijaybhai Gamit, Tapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bardoli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Nareshbhai Vijaybhai Gamit, I.T.O., Shop No. 37, Riddhi Siddhi Palace, Ward-1, Vs. Old Bus Stand, Vyara, Bardoli. District- Tapi-394650. Pan No. Bqbpg 4350 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 270A

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 26/07/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds ... appeal: “1. The order passed by NFAC is bad I law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming estimation of income @ 8% made by AO without pointing out any defects in books of accounts or without rejecting books of account ignoring

Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 211/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, I.T.O., B-102, Swastik Woods, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(2), Vs. Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Ammpg 2317 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

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 14/09/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds ... appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide his order dated 14/09/2021 confirmed addition of Rs. 13,57,110/- made by the ld. ITO without considering the facts that appellant has submitted copies of accounts of persons with their addresses containing the details of cash paid by them against

Lokendra Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: MsMonishaChoudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal center, Delhi [hereinafter referred as “NFAC”] dated 13-01-2023 for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 2 LOKENDRA KHANDELWAL VS ITO, WARD

Jai Club, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 229/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Naman Kumar Jain(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 201Section 3(35)

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred as “NFAC”] dated 20-01-2023 for the assessment year 2021-22 wherein the solitary ground of the assesssee that the ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts

Dinesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur

ITA 17/JPR/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred as “NFAC”] dated 23-11-2021 for the assessment year 2008-09 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. “ 1. INITIATION UNDER SECTION

Tushar Jayantilal Lakhani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-28, Mumbai

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

ITA 781/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrytushar Jayantilal Lakhani Versus Cit(A) -28, 401, 4Th Floor, Earnest 32/5, Swadin Sadan, “C” Road, Churchgate, House, Ncpa Marg, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Pan: Aaapl4784A Mumbai-400021 Respondent Appellant

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Hirawat, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250

This Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 06.03.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai / NFAC, Delhi {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14. 2 ITA No. 781/Mum/2023-Tushar

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Sayed, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 593/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Aasifa Khan Submitted That Before The Ld. Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Assessee Could Not Appear Because The Notices Issued On The Email Of The Assessee & She Was Not Aware Of Any Such E-Mail Sent As She Is Not An Educated Person. On Merits She Submitted That Assessee Had Purchased Property I.E. A Small Shop At Shop No.3, Ground Floor, Admeasuring Area 190 Sq.Ft Built Up, Bearing C.S.No.1354, Mahim Division Situated At Cadle Castle Co- Operative Housing Society Ltd, Veer Savarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016. Alongwith Another Co-Owner Shri Siraj Ahmed Merchant Had Purchased A Shop Premise For A Consideration Of Rs.20,00,000/- & Both The Co-Owners Have Paid Rs.10,00,000/- Each. However, The Stamp Value Of The Said Property Was Determined At Rs.37,04,000/- As Mentioned In The Deed Of Transfer.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Pronouncement 28/06/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed against order dated 18/01/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2018-19. 2. In various grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the exparte order passed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 927/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat Is Quashed 2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Instead Of Observing The Fact That The Department Had Challenged The Hon'Ble Itat Order Before The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court.”

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 06/02/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (C) for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of penalty of Rs.13

Kreteka Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 902/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. GopalFor Respondent: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

preferred this appeal against the order dated 24.01.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner)’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Kreteka Investments Pvt. Ltd. 2. In this case

Rajiv Naresh Godiawala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 893/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Us That In The Quantum Appeal, The Entire Addition On Which Penalty Has Been Set Aside To The File Of The Cit(A) By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30/05/2022

Section 271(1)(C)

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23/02/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) for the A.Y.2011-12. 2. It has been stated before us that in the quantum appeal, the entire addition

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. The J.K Trust Bombay, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 817/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.817/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit (Exemption)-2(1) बिधम/ The J. K. Trust Bombay Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Ground Floor, New Hind Vs. Mtnl Building, Cumballa House, Ballard Estate, Hill, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400001. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.45/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The J. K. Trust Bombay बिधम/ Dcit (Exemption)-2(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Ground Floor, New Hind Vs. House, Ballard Estate, Mtnl Building, Mumbai-400001. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt0611L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Ankush Kapoor (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Dated 17.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Madhur Aggarwal Drawing Our Attention To The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee Submitted That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Deciding The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee Wherein Assessee Has Brought To The Notice Of The Ld. Cit(A) That The Impugned Order Of Ao Was Pursuant To The Ld. Cit(E)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM

M/S. Prakhhyat Corporate Services Private Limited., Mumbai vs. ITO- Ward-7(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-

ITA 648/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

invalid and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble C.I.T.(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal being no sufficient cause shown for delay by the Appellant. 3. The appellant craves ... therefore liable to be quashed. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble C.I.T.(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.60,00,000/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unsecured loan

M/S. Prakhhyat Corporate Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-7(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-

ITA 621/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ITO-22(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahesh Luthria Family Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 517/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Section 143(3)Section 68

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 23/12/2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2017-18. 2. In the grounds of appeal, revenue has challenged deletion of addition of Rs.10 Crores made u/s.68 r.w.s

Moolchandji Rlkhabdas Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 481/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-2015

Section 143(3)

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 14/11/2022 passed by NFAC for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2014-15. 2. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged disallowance of Rs.28,61,580/- of ‘jala fitting expenses’ by treating

JCIT (OSD), Circle-17(1), Mumbai vs. Nafisa Asgar Mun, Mumbai

ITA 443/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. A.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

Revenue’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2016-17 on the grounds inter-alia that :- 2 Ms. Nafisa

Madanlal Mohanlal Sakhala, Mumbai vs. Addl. Comm of Income Tax Circle-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 308/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Iswar RathiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM