← 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

Emmbros Autocomp Limited, Baddi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1172/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Emmbros Autocomp The Acit, बनाम Limited, Village Katha, Circle, Baddi, Parwanoo Vs. Distt. Solan 173220 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaace3489Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Raman Tiwari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 801CSection 80I

order is bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1172-Chd-2024 2 NFAC, Delhi has not appreciated the facts and law in the correct manner and in accordance with the statute. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income ... Appeals). So your honour is requested to please condone the delay in filing of appeal before learned CIT (Appeals). 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi grossly erred in not considering the appeal irrespective of the fact that the Original Order passed under section 143(3) of the Income

Jigneshkumar Takhatsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1814/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarthe Ito Jigneshkumar Takhetsinh Vs. Ward-1(2)(1) Vaghela Vadodara – 390 007 Plot No.583/2, Sector 4 C Bear Goga Naharaj Temple Gandhinagar – 382 006 [Pan: Agcpv 2135 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Respondent By: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2016 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2016

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 17/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds ... Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. ""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC). Delhi 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,//// सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt