← All Phrases

“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
43
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
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

M/S Edavanakkad Service Co-Op Bank Ltd No 1, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Ward 2(5) Non Corporate, Kochi

ITA 1016/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Anjana A, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

M/S Edavanakkad Service Co-Op Bank Ltd No 1, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Ward 2(5) Non Corporate, Kochi

ITA 1015/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Anjana A, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Sanjaykumar Dhirubhai Hirpara, Khambha vs. AO, ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 260/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapura Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147

exparte Appellate order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “NFAC”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A No. 260/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page ... Tribunal and restored the exparte appellate order and assessment order. Following the above Jurisdictional High Court judgment, the exparte order passed by the Ld. NFAC and Assessing Officer does not require any interference and the present appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have given

Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, Senjaldham, Tehsil : Savarkundla, Dist: Amreli vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Dhyan Swamibapa Trust, Ito Senjaldham, Vs. Ward-1(Exemption), Tehsil Saavarkundala Rajkot. Dist. Amreli-364515 C/O. Sanghavi & Company, Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaatd1598E

For Appellant: Shri G.R Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Year 2015-16. Asstt. Year 2015-16 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned CIT(A) NFAC Delhi has grievously erred in confirming the assessment of the returned income of Rs.NIL at a taxable income of Rs. 25,60,000 whilst processing ... That the learned CIT(A) NFAC Delhi has grievously erred in confirming that the adjustment so done confirmed by the CPC is within the jurisdiction vested us 143(1) of the Act. 3. That the appellant craves for leave to add, amend and or modify the grounds of appeal

Surjan Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 92/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Lalwani, ProxyFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 272A(1)

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 30-12-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. Order passed by the AO u/s 271D r.w.s

Amba Tech Engineering, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)ADIT - CPC, Alwar

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 49/JPR/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 438

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 02-12-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2019-10 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... case, the ld. CIT (A),NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in the violating the principal of faceless appeal as announced for justices of honest taxpayers and the functioning of faceless processing's in honesty and 2 AMBA TECH ENGINEERING VS ITO, WARD 2(3), ALWAR judicially manner and to avoid

Shri Kbl Sharma Memorial Educational & Cultural Society, Defence Public School, E-Block, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO(Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. MonishaChoudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 154

dated 31-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012- 13 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on fact and in law in rejecting the application u/s 154 dated ... barred by limitation on 31-03- 2023. 2 SHRI KBL SHARMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY VS ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 2. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on fact and in law in not deciding the ground relating to not allowing accumulation of income of Rs.6

Leela Devi Jain, Tonk vs. ITO, Ward- Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 218/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Muzaffar Iqbal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 10/02/2023 [here in after (NFAC)/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2011-12 which in turn arise from the order dated 28.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

Lalita Kumari, Anta District Baran vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

vihy la-@ITA. No. 217/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 cuke Lalita Kumari CIT Appeals, Prem Prakash & Co. Prem Vs. NFAC, Delhi Prakash & Co., Anta, Rajasthan LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADHPK 9191 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee ... appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 06/02/2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2016-17, which in turn arise from the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by ITO Ward, Baran

Subhash Chand Patni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 207/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 24.02.2023 [here in after (NFAC) / ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2010-11 which in turn arise from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(1), Jaipur [ here ... levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law, perverse and against the facts and law. Further action of Ld CIT(Appeal), NFAC in so far as confirming the levy of penalty as levied by Ld AO is absolutely illegal and unjustified in the facts & circumstances of the case

Yogendra Khandelwal, 1St Floor Somani Building Loha Mandi vs. Assisstant Commissioner Cercle 3 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Jain (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara(Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U

Hanuman Prasad, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(4), Jaipur

In the result Ground No.1 of assessee is allowed and Ground No

ITA 18/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54F

SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Id.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred as “NFAC”] dated 15-11-2022 for the assessment year 2008-09 wherein the assessee vide application dated 18" Feb. 2023 prayed for admission of revised grounds

Smt. Manju Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 147Section 54F

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28/02/2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2015-16, which in turn arise from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 06.09.2021. 2. The assessee

Sharda Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. CPC/Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.930 & 931/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: N.R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 139Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 91

Singh (AM): These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different order of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act of NFAC, Delhi, dated 21.03.2023 and 17.03.2023. Since these appeals are based on similar issue and identical facts therefore, for the sake of convenience both these appeals

Sharda Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. CPC/Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 930/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.930 & 931/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: N.R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 139Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 91

Singh (AM): These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different order of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act of NFAC, Delhi, dated 21.03.2023 and 17.03.2023. Since these appeals are based on similar issue and identical facts therefore, for the sake of convenience both these appeals

M/S Svadeshi Enterprise (Hubli), Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)-2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 877/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S Svadeshi Enterprise Vs. Ito 17(3)(2) (Hubli) 12-A, 1St Floor, Mumbai – 400 020 Yusuf Building, Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Mumbai – 400 023 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfs0181B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Tejas Chandarana Respondent By : Harmesh Lal Date Of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Dated 15.03.2023 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Ex-Parte Order & Thereby Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Granting Proper Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Compensation Paid To M/S. Svadeshi Enterprise (Mumbai) Amounting To Rs.10,00,00,000/-. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Commission & Brokerage Expenses Of Rs.1,12,36,000/- The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter Or Delete All Or Any Of The Foregoing Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Tejas ChandaranaFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal is filed by the assesse against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi, dated 15.03.2023 for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred

M/S. Mustang Enterprises, Mum vs. ITO, Cir-20(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee is dismissed

ITA 71/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Mustang Enterprises Ito, Circle-20(1) 219 Milan Industrial Estate, Mumbai T J Marg, Cotton Green, Vs. Mumbai-400 033

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal Shah
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18. 2. The assessee

Silmohan Gems Pvt Ltd. Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 472/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission

Silmohan Gems Pvt Ltd. Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 471/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Silmohan Gems Private Limted, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 450/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission made Ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in considering the submission