“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

Peace Fellowship Charitable Trust, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 112/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.112/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20) Peace Fellowship Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer Trust, Kakinada. (Exemption Ward), Pan: Aadtp 4911 A Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048260525(1), dated 27/12/2022 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2019-20. 2. At the outset ... certificate U/s. 12AA of the Act, all the receipts received by the assessee are treated as income of the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. AO [NFAC] completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act on 16/09/2021 and determined the total income at Rs. 6,01,209/-. Aggrieved

Bharat Kotecha & Sons, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

ITA 136/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.136/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bharat Kotecha & Sons 9/403, Budhapara, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabhb7659F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

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 31.03.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income

Rathi Bandhus Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Jagdalpur, Bastar

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

ITA 131/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.131/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rathi Bandhus Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Jagdalpur, Baster (C.G.) Pan : Aaecr9010N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Jagdalpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Durga Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 28.02.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

Shivendra Singh, Raipur vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

ITA 13/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

captioned appeals filed by the assessees are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O for the captioned assessment years. 2. This is the second round

Shivendra Singh, Raipur vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

ITA 12/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Pramod Kumar Chand, Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 105/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Rajhara Engineering Works Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Dalli Rajhara vs. Assessing Officer, Ward - (2), Bhilai

ITA 110/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. R N Construction, Bhilai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

ITA 105/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Bec Projects Limited, Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bhilai

ITA 88/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Aklavya Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 93/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.93/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Aklavya Industries Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, Ward1(1)(1), Plot No.2429, Road No. 24, Surat. Opp: Parle Bottling Plant, Gidc, Sachin, Surat - 394230 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcs6274F

Section 143(1)Section 14BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Rupa Milton Dey, Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 293/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rupa Milton Dey, I.T.O., C-103, Akash Bhumi Apartment, Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Jayvir Co-Op Society, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Akapd 9422 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 406Section 438

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 02/02/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds

Armaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Assessing Officer, Cir. 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 286/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Armaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1) Plot No. 714, Road No. 7, Gidc, Surat. Vs. Sachin, Surat. Pan No. Aagcs 8010 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 16/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee has raised following grounds

M/S Rajesh Filaments Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 185/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) M/S Rajesh Filaments Private Limited, D.C.I.T., 218, Jeevandeep Complex, Opposite- Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. J.K. Tower, Nr. Sub Jail, Ring Road, Surat. Surat-395002. Pan: Aabcr 1294 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)Section 43B

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the ld. CIT(A)] dated 16/01/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

Manju Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota

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

ITA 56/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 16-01-2022 , National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment years 2018-19 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1 The order passed u/s 143(1) while making

Shree Ganesh Associates, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Garg, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 16-03-2023, 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. That the AO had erred in initiating proceedings

Raju Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed ‘’

ITA 411/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 69C

filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 31-10-2022, 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. That the authorities below made the addition doubting

Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.Ustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 785/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryfakhri Co-Operative Versus Commissioner Of Housing Society Ltd. Income Tax 422, Matharpakhadi Road, (Appeals) Mazgaon, Nfac, Delhi. Maharashtra-400010. Pan: Aaaaf1078N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Murtaza Quresh Ghandiali & Ms. Sabeena Darukhanawal, Ar Respondent/Department By : Ms. Mini Vinod, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2023 Order Narender Kumar Choudhry, J.M: This Assessee/Appellant Herein Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.01.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / Nfac, Delhi {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2013-14. Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. In This Case, The Appellant Earned Interest From Co- Operative & Other Banks & Therefore, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 On 22.08.2013 Which Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Dated 12.11.2014 Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Amounts Of Rs. 2,08,071/- & Rs. 50,000/- Have Not Been Considered Under Section 80P(2)(C)(Ii) & Consequently Disallowed.

For Appellant: Sh. Murtaza QureshFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER Fakhri Co-operative VersuS Commissioner of Housing Society Ltd. Income Tax 422, Matharpakhadi Road, (Appeals) Mazgaon, NFAC, Delhi. Maharashtra-400010. PAN: AAAAF1078N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee by : Sh. Murtaza Quresh Ghandiali & Ms. Sabeena Darukhanawal, AR Respondent/Department by : Ms. Mini Vinod, DR Date ... CHOUDHRY, J.M: This Assessee/Appellant herein has preferred this appeal against the order dated 12.01.2023 impugned herein passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC, Delhi {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14. Fakhri Co-operative Housing

Mr. Prahlad G Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 783/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ujjwal Chavhan

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 31.01.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The solitary issue in the ground of appeal of the assessee is directed against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting

Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT-20(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 298/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.298/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad बिधम/ Acit-20(3) Sharma R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Vs. 55/4, Rishikesh Bhawan, Piramal Chambers, Aai Mai Merwanji Street, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aljps5054L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2023 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 10.01.2023 Passed For Ay 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.41,79,889/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business As Works Contractor (For Supply Of Display Counters By Making It At The Site Of Customer). The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 12.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.34,12,777/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Later, An Information Was Received From The Office Of Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That The Assessee Was Engaged In Showing Bogus Purchases & Is A Beneficiary Of Such Transaction. The Ao Has Taken Note Of Fifteen (15) Parties From Whom It Was Alleged

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

albeit through the mode of email (and not through the department portal since, this was the initially years of adjudication before the NFAC). And therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by him. Having said so, the Ld. AR pointed

Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal, Mumbai vs. National E Assessmet Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 202/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebenudhar Gokulanand Vs. National E Assessment Biswal, Centre, H 302, Room.No 401,2 Nd Shanti Complex, Floor, E Ramp, Saki Vihar Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Powai, Stadium, Mumbai – 400072, New Delhi-110003. Pan/Gir No. : Adopb9106B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Tanmay Phadke.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per The Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)]Despite Concluding That The Agreement For Sale Was Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. Entered Into On 13.07.2009 (I.E. Prior To 01.04.2017), Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Which Was Inserted Vide Finance Act, 2017 & Made Expressly Applicable From 01.04.2017 Are Not Applicable To The Facts Under Consideration. The Addition Of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% Of Rs. 19,76,686/-) As Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Is Bad In Law & May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr.Tanmay Phadke.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Naina K Kumar.DR

Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(x)

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A) passed U/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case