← 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

Praveen Sanjiv, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3834/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3834/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Praveen Sanjiv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 45, W Block, 7Th Street, Anna Non Corporate Ward 7(3), Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Fzzps0216R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 2 I.T.A

Selvaraj Manoharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3794/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.3793 & 3794/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Selvaraj Manoharan, The Income Tax Officer, No.96 A V V Koil Street, Vs. Non-Corp Circle-7(1), Thiruvalleswarar Nagar, Chennai. Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan:Agkpm-7433-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40Section 44A

These appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘ld.CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2020-21, vide the orders dated 18.09.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively against the assessment order passed ... NFAC, Delhi, u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 06.09.2022 and the penalty :-2-: ITA Nos. 3793 & 3794/Chny/2025 order passed by the AO, NFAC, Delhi, u/s.271B of the Act dated 07.04.2025 respectively. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there

Selvaraj Manoharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3793/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.3793 & 3794/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Selvaraj Manoharan, The Income Tax Officer, No.96 A V V Koil Street, Vs. Non-Corp Circle-7(1), Thiruvalleswarar Nagar, Chennai. Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan:Agkpm-7433-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mr. M.S. Pandian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 40Section 44A

These appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘ld.CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2020-21, vide the orders dated 18.09.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively against the assessment order passed ... NFAC, Delhi, u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 06.09.2022 and the penalty :-2-: ITA Nos. 3793 & 3794/Chny/2025 order passed by the AO, NFAC, Delhi, u/s.271B of the Act dated 07.04.2025 respectively. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there