← 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

Sri Ram Samaj, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward - 3, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 707/CHNY/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.707, 708 & 709/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Sri Ram Samaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Arya Gowda Road, Exemption Ward 3, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacts5436N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 23.07.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2015-16 & Order Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Completed On 2

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 23.07.2022 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2015-16 and order dated 29.06.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief ... assessing taxable income at ₹.93,87,141/- against NIL income. 4. The assessee carried the matters in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) for all the assessment years under consideration. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) are common in all the three appellate orders and are reproduced

M/S Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 28.07.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return ... delayed payment in respect of EPF/ESI of ₹.6,57,830/-. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the disallowance. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 10.06.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return ... employees contribution was deposited beyond the due date of respective Acts. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the disallowance. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing summary of payments made

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 25.05.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by eight days in filing ... disallowance on account of belated deposit of Provident Fund/ESI. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the disallowance. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company

Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 1871/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1871/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia बिधम/ Cit(A) Row House No. 4, Shree Income Tax Department, Vs. Tilak Complex, Eksar Road, National Faceless Appeal Devki Nagar, Borivli West, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Mumbai-400103, Maharashtra, India. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd3444K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 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 28.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Order U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.06.2022 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043629976(1) Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Thereby Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Submissions Made By The Appellant. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal & Thereby Dismissing The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao (I.E. Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) Dated 22.12.2018, Wherein He Has (I) Made An Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of The Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 250Section 68

बिधम/ CIT(A) Row House No. 4, Shree Income Tax Department, Vs. Tilak Complex, Eksar Road, National Faceless Appeal Devki Nagar, Borivli West, Centre (NFAC), Delhi. Mumbai-400103, Maharashtra, India. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACPD3444K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Mr. Chetan Kacha ... VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi dated 28.06.2022 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal of the revenue reads as under: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) passed an order

M/S. National Decorators Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1790/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) M/S. National Decorators बिधम/ Jcit Of It, Cir-25(3) 2, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Kautilya Bhawan, G Vs. Road, Vile Parle (E), Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400056. Complex Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffn0305E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 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 17.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Penalty Confirmed By Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ao) U/S 271Da Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 269SSection 271D

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi dated 17.06.2022 for the assessment year 2018-19 against the penalty confirmed by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) u/s 271DA of the Income

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-24(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh Surendra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ Bhavesh Surendra Shah Room No.601, Piramal 34/P, Laxmi Industrial Vs. Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Estate, New Link Road, Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri-W, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps0265M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Dalpat Shah Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.03.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 54(1) Of Rs.2,29,33,659/- Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 54(1) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Provided The Assessee Invests In A New Capital Asset Within A Period Of One Year Before Or Two Years After The Date Transfer Of Old House, The Taxpayer Should Acquire Another Residential House Or Should Construct A Residential House Within A Period Of Three Years From The Date Of Transfer Of The Old House.

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 54Section 54(1)

prior to one year of the sale of the old asset. 4. The appellant prays that the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Mumbai vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1666/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan बिधम/ Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, B-106 Shiv Sambhav Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Chsl, Veer Savarkar 421301. Road, Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeeps2956R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 11.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Facts Of The Case Is That The Ao In The Quantum Assessment Dated 30.12.2014 Had Added Rs.1,46,635/- Being 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A)-1 By Order Dated 25.06.2018 Reduced The Same To The Extent Of 25% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases. Resultantly, The Addition Was Restricted To Rs.36,659/-. On Further Appeal By Revenue, The Tribunal Upheld The Action Of The Cit(A) (Ita. No 5079 & 5080/Mum/2018) & Thus The Revenue Appeal Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi dated 11.03.2022 for assessment year 2010-11 deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter