← 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

Cae Simulation Training P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 913/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. DR
Section 199Section 199(3)

ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Years 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21. 2. The sole issue agitated by the assessee in the captioned appeals is that

Cae Simulation Training P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 912/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. DR
Section 199Section 199(3)

ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Years 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21. 2. The sole issue agitated by the assessee in the captioned appeals is that

Cae Simulation Training P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 911/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. DR
Section 199Section 199(3)

ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Years 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21. 2. The sole issue agitated by the assessee in the captioned appeals is that

Shri Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Sarangarh vs. Income Tax Officer-3, Raigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.80/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Agrawal Agrawal Agencies, Raipur Road, Sarangrah (C.G.) Pan : Aflpa5303G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3, Raigarh (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
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 22.03.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

Shri Jasubhai Najabhai Barad, Chhatroda, (Gir Somnath) vs. The ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

perused. Noncompliance with statutory provisions is not acceptable. No reason has been furnished by the appellant assessee in spite of reasonable opportunities by AO & NFAC. There is no reason to interfere with the AO's order. Also the order has been made by the AO and is addressed as under

Shree Salabatpura Urban Co-Op[. Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 175/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shree Salabatpura Urban Co. Op. D.C.I.T. Credit Society Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. 4/2424, Salabatpura Main Road, Surat. Salabatpura, Surat-395003. Pan No. Aaaas 3509 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 80P

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 06/08/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 2015-16 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds

Smt. Anju Rajpurohit, Pali vs. AO, NFAC, Delhi / ITO, Ward-1, Pali

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

ITA 181/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad181/Jodh/2022 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) Smt. Anju Rajpurohit Vs The Ito 2-A-33, New Housing Board, Ward-1, Pali, Pali-306 401 Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Agzpr 6477 R

Section 148

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short ‘’NFAC’’) dated 25-11-2022 for the assessment year 2013-14 raising therein following grounds of appeal. 2 SMT. ANJU RAJPUROHIT VS AO, WARD-1, PALI ... savings nor proof of 3 SMT. ANJU RAJPUROHIT VS AO, WARD-1, PALI source of income for purchase of the property before the AO, NFAC, Delhi which indicates that the assessee was deprived off to contest the case before the lower authorities. 2.2 On the other hand

Anil Mehta, Pali vs. DCIT, CPC Bangalore / ITO, Ward-1, Pali, Bangalore/Pali

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

ITA 120/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad120/Jodh/2021 (Assessment Year- 2017-18) Vs Dcit Shri Anil Mehta Cpc, Bangalore F-177A, Mandia Road Ind. Area Pali, Marward (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaypm 7445 B

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

BORAD, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Face Appeal Centre (for short NFAC), New Delhi 2 SHRI ANIL MEHTA VS ITO, WARD 1, PALI dated 24-11-2021 for the assessment year 2017-18 raising therein following grounds

Nyr Creations Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-18(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1637/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 68

Order : 23.03.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.07.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. On the facts ... circumstances of the case, the order passed by the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2 ITA No.1637/Del./2022 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing

Anil Seth, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1626/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Time Of Objecting To The Draft Assessment Order Had Expired.

For Appellant: Shri J.S. Kochar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(3)

Order : 23.03.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.05.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. The assessment order

Abhishek Modi, Indore vs. The ITO 2 (1), Indore

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

ITA 415/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 44ASection 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That the Id. CIT(A), NFAC was not justified in confirming the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab-initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts ... circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. The Id. CIT(A), NFAC did not provide the fair opportunity to the appellant to furnish document or reply in support of the claim and confirmed the addition. 3. The Id. CIT (A) NFAC not justified in confirming the addition amounting

M.P.Vidhyut Mandal Karamchari Sahkarisakh Sansthan Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT 4(1), Indore

ITA 349/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M.P. Vidhyut Mandal Acit, 4(1) Karamchari Sahkarisakh Indore बनाम/ Sansthan Ltd. Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaam 0580 C Assessee By Shri Vijay Bansal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 26.07.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 19.12.2016 passed by learned ACIT, Cirlce-4(1), Indore

Akhand Associates, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 13/04/2022 [here in after referred (NFAC/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arise from the order passed by the ACIT/DCIT, Circle-5, Jaipur [ here in after referred ... invoked the provisions of Section 115BBE. II. Against the order passed by ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Center (“NFAC”/ “ld. CIT(A)”). NFAC, vide order dated 13.04.2022, in Appeal No. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur/11275/2019-20, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order passed

Deepak Jain, C-Scheme vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhagwan Das Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 68

appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 30.08.2021 [here in after (NFAC)/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2013-14 which in turn arise from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Jaipur [ here ... Section 115BBE were invoked. VI. Thereafter, assessee, against the additions made by the ld. AO, preferred appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”). NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order of NFAC, present appeal has been preferred by the assessee before the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur

Kanchan Plastics Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 68

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, , NFAC, Delhi, dated 10.3.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1040539332(1) 22/1040539332(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Mohit Sheth ... Appellant : Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: DCIT, ASMNT Circle-2(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Inter Globle Aviation Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2539/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryinter Globle Aviation Ltd. Vs. Acit Upper Ground Floor, Circle – 10(1) Westren Wing, Thapper New Delhi House-124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 Pan No. Aabci 2726 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Soumya Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) - Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Inter Globle Aviation Ltd Vs Acit 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Airlines Under The Name & Style Of Indigo. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 On 30.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,26,11,80,910/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Vide Order Dated 19.04.2021 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.24,31,89,53,536/-.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 271D

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) - Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Inter

Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

have been initiated since assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act has been made by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) vide order dated 28.03.2022. Assessee was further informed that appeal against assessment order is required to be filed and assessee is also entitled to question the order

Shri. Ajit Singh S/O Shri. Ram Chand, Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Nawanshahr

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

ITA 109/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.03.2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 Ajit Singh v. ITO 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted ... that the Ld. CIT (Appeal) NFAC Delhi, has erred in sustaining the assessment order dated 29.08.2019, passed by Ld. A.O, Ward Nawanshahr, Punjab u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in violation of principal of natural justice; that no proper or reasonable opportunity have been afforded

M/S Sgepl Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 28/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.28/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sgepl Infrastructure Private Limited (Private Limited Company) (Earlier Known As Satish Goel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) Gokul Puram, Kachna Road, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aajcs6322H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

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 02.12.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short