← 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

Baramati Taluka Sahakari Phalutpadam Sangh, Pune vs. ITO Ward-14(50, Pune

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

ITA 2104/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2103 & 2104/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Baramati Taluka V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakariphalutpadan Sangh, S Ward-14(5), Pune. At Pipmaliatpimpali Post Pimpali Taluka Baramati District Pune – 413102. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatb5269Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 25.07.2025 & 07.08.2025 Respectively; Against The Order U/S.143(3) Dated 05.03.2021 & Penalty Order U/S.270A Of The Act, Dated 09.08.2021 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee are against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 25.07.2025 and 07.08.2025 respectively; against the order u/s.143(3) dated 05.03.2021 and penalty

Baramati Taluka Sahakari Phalutpadam Sangh, Pune vs. ITO Ward-14(5), Pune

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

ITA 2103/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2103 & 2104/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Baramati Taluka V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakariphalutpadan Sangh, S Ward-14(5), Pune. At Pipmaliatpimpali Post Pimpali Taluka Baramati District Pune – 413102. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatb5269Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 25.07.2025 & 07.08.2025 Respectively; Against The Order U/S.143(3) Dated 05.03.2021 & Penalty Order U/S.270A Of The Act, Dated 09.08.2021 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee are against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 25.07.2025 and 07.08.2025 respectively; against the order u/s.143(3) dated 05.03.2021 and penalty

Minakshi Kishor Lolge, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward-Hingoli, Parbhani

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

ITA 1962/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Minakshi Kishor Lolge, V The Income Tax Officer, Takli Kumbhakarna, Parbhani, S Ward Hingoli, Parbhani. Maharashtra – 431540. Pan: Bcypl7838J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule (Through Virtual Hearing) –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 24.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2019-20 dated 24.06.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s

Devtech M2M Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Devtech M2M Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 4Th Floor, Sava House, Opp. 1(1), Pune. New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aadcb4376Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Cit(A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By Learned Ao-Nfac (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Thereby Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2,22,00,000 As Against Nil Returned Income. 2. Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Granted An Appropriate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant For Making Requisite

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

/NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC (hereinafter referred as CIT(A)) erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by learned AO-NFAC (hereinafter referred to as Learned

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 27.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”/“NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order ... firm has been 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : *1) The learned CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI has erred in sustaining the validity of the reassessment where it was without jurisdiction and bad in law because the assessing officer had wrongly

M/S Manilal P. Savla & Company, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2394 & 2393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manilal P. Savla & Company, 24, Bhawani Peth, Pune-411042 Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune Pan: Aabfm9782A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 27.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 27.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”/“NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order ... appellant are dismissed. 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : "1) The learned CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI has erred in sustaining the validity of the reassessment where it was without jurisdiction and bad in law because the assessing officer had wrongly

Birlasoft Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1116/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 36(1)(va)Section 51Section 80ISection 90

PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.08.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assesse is a public limited company and is engaged in the business ... made addition of Rs.2,18,89,134/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging other things, challenged the order of the Assessing Officer in considering the starting point of the tax computation from

M. Agathiyan, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

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

ITA 2521/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2521/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthuvel Agathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18, Keela Fourth Street, Mannargudi Ward 1, Post, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur 614 001. Thiruvarur. [Pan:Aihpa1940J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate Drew Our Attention To Ground No. K Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal & Submits That The Assessee Challenged

For Appellant: Shri S. Kaarthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 135ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate drew ... Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer NFAC is not in accordance with the provisions of law, which goes to the root of the case, raised for the first time before the Tribunal