← 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

Prakash Narayanan, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 969/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 90

Pronouncement : 05-08-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 12/03/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19 and raised the following grounds: “1.0 The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income

Mrs. Surekha L/R of Late Shri. Devaraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 910/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

Pronouncement : 05-08-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 04/03/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16 and raised the following grounds: “A. GENERAL GROUNDS: 1. The appellate order passed by the learned

Prema Kumari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 89/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 2(13)Section 2(14)

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 09/02/2024 and 13/02/2024 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2015-16. 2. First, we take up ITA No. 89/Bang/2025, an appeal by the assessee

Prema Kumari, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 75/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 2(13)Section 2(14)

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 09/02/2024 and 13/02/2024 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2015-16. 2. First, we take up ITA No. 89/Bang/2025, an appeal by the assessee

Telkar Sreenivasarao Sathyanarayana Rao, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 118/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H Shankare Gowda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 263

JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29/12/2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘ Act’) for the assessment year

Alur Gopala Reddy, Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 &Tps, Bellary

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

ITA 1010/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sowmya Murugesan, BA, LLBFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Pronouncement : 05-08-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 28/02/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

Azad Coach Builders Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1978/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 04/10/2024 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the assessment

Swamy Holagundi, Huvina Hadagali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

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

ITA 1767/BANG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Swamy Holagundi Prop: Raviteja Traders 7C/10, 3Rd Ward Ito Bangarappanagar Vs. Ward-1 & Tps Karnataka 583 219 Hospet Pan: Dwjps7047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.R Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., Jcit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 19.07.2024Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2-24-25/1066829871(1) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., JCIT D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69C

ITA No.1767/Bang/2024 Swamy Holagundi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 615/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

challenging the impugned order dt. 28.11.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the bench, that

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 614/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

challenging the impugned order dt. 28.11.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the bench, that

Sevantilal Bhaichand Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 3761/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 250(6)

challenging the impugned order dt. 26.05.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without

Shabana Parvez Malim, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3759/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2015-16 Shabana Parvez Malim, Ito, Ward-31(2)(1), B-403, Atlantic Sagarcity, Kautilya Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Vp Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400098. Mumbai-400058. Pan : Bpxpm9611Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohd. Shahabkhan Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. ShahabkhanFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 03-04-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has sustained the levy of penalty

Coral India Finance & Housing Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri V K Ginde, ARFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mr. Rohit Ramesh Kapoor, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2416/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleand Shri Omkareshwar Chidaramr. Rohit Ramesh Kapoor Ito, Ward-42(3)(2) Mumbai S/O. Ramesh Chandra Kapoor, 301, Room No. 609, Kautilya Bhawan 3Rd Floor, Exotica Apartment, Plot Vs C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc No. 91, Sector 12, Vashi, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan: Avdpk8131E (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri V.D. Parmar, Advocate Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. Dr Department Represented By : 07.04.2025 Date Of Institution : Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 05.08.2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 254(1)

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC dated 13.02.2025 for A.Y. 2015-16.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred

Agrawal Ramesh Murlidhar HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee raised by the assessee are partly

ITA 2370/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Agrawal Ramesh Murlidhar (Huf) Ito – 19(3)(1), Mumbai 328, Panchratna, 3Rd Floor, Vs Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004. Mumbai - 400012. [Pan: Aaaha0529A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Agrawal Ramesh Murlidhar

Arunkumar Mithalal Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23-1-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 6687/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah & Shri Viraj BhayaniFor Respondent: 07.05.2025
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 48Section 69A

assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘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) 2014-15 2. The assessee has raised ... notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 25/07/2022 had been issued by the Jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) and not by faceless officer (NFAC) and also erred in not following the applicable Jurisdiction decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Arunkumar Mithalal Soni Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Bombay

Gem Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-27(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5896/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

challenging the impugned order dt. 18.09.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. At the very outset, we noticed that assessee was ex- 2. parte before

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Manju Enterprises Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is considered dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 535/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Manju Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, J-209/3, Lane-15, Ward-16(2), Western Avenue, New Delhi. Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan: Aaacm4887E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Krishma Rathore, Advocate & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-6/10165/2017-18 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 15.11.2017 Passed U/S 263 R.W.S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 16(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Time Of Hearing The Ld. Counsel, Vide An Application Placed On Record, Submitted Out On Behalf Of The Assessee That The Assessee Has Approached The Competent Authority For Taking Benefit Of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 By Submitting Form 1. It Was Also Brought To Our Knowledge That Relevant Form No.2 Has Been Issued In Favour Of The Assessee. The Assessee, In Compliance Of Form-2 Has Also Deposited The Amount Payable As Computed In Form-2 & The Challan Depicting The Same Was Also Enclosed With The Said Letter. It Was Also Submitted That The Appeal Will Be Settled According To The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 And, Therefore, A Request Was Made For Withdrawal Of The Appeal With Liberty To Approach The Tribunal In Case The Appeal Is Not Settled. The Ld. Dr Had No Objection To The Withdrawal.

For Appellant: Ms Krishma Rathore, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 263

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.01.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-6/10165/2017-18 arising

Vijay Sama, Agra vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Agra

ITA 5110/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi