← 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

Chhering Tomdan, Spiti, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 170/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chhering Tomdan, Vs. The Ito, Village Khurik, बनाम Rampur Bushahr, Po Rangreek, Himachal Pradesh Rangrik B.O. Khurik (78), Lauhaul & Spiti, H.P. 171114 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bhxpt8803P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Shri Viren Sibbal, Advocate & Shri Ashok Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 156Section 250Section 69A

case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 06.01.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 170-Chd-2024 – Chhering Tomdan, Lahaul & Spiti, 2 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: - 1. That the reopening of the proceedings ... Income Tax Act 1961 Aggrieved by the Assessment order dated 21.03.2022 the Assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC on 22.04.2022. After filing the Appeal, various notices under section 250 of the Act were issued to the Assessee dated 22.09.2023 and 06.01.2024. The Assessee duly responded

Hemantkumar Mansukhlal Soni, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Hemantkumar Mansukhlal Soni, Huf Ito, Ward-1(3)(1) 2254 Mahurat Pole Vs Ahmedabad. Manekchowk Ahmedabad-380001. Pan : Aabhh 1182 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.04.203 15.3.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Are As Under:

For Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 250Section 68

आदेश आदेश आदेश PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.04.203 15.3.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment year ... grounds raised in the appeal are as under: “1.1 The order passed by U/s,250 passed on 27.04.2023 by NFAC,(CIT(A), Delhi, (for short NFAC) upholding that the capital gain on sale of shares of Monotype India Ltd. was not genuine and thereby upholding the addition of Rs.59