← 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

Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel L/H. of Late Dahyabhai Ishwarbhai Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 352/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel, L/H Of Late Shri Dahyabhai The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ishwarbhai Patel, Ward-1, At Pirojpura, Post Sardarpura, Patan Taluko Vijapur, Mehsana Pan : Atjpp 7158 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short referred ... Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. The order passed by AO and confirmed by NFAC is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition

Uday Damodar Bajaj, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani Math, Nashik vs. Officer of the Income Tax, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uday Damodar Bajaj, V The Income Tax Officer, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Math, Dhammagiri Road, Varachi Peth, Igatpuri – 422403. Pan: Ahypb2584P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 19.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “The Appellant, Aggrieved By The Order Passed By Ld. Additional / Joint Cit(A) - 7, Kolkata U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 19.04.2024 Preferred This Uday Damodar Bajaj [A]

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270FSection 271ASection 69A

assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] that ... Uday Damodar Bajaj [A] ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 4.1 It is observed that the ld.CIT(A)/JCIT

Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1304/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1304/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, 3 B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, S Ward-2(3), Pune. Krikee, Pune – 411003. Pan: Aaqpj2957F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C V Deshpande – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac]Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.08.2023 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Gravely Erred In Not Accepting Request Of The Appellant For Adjourning The Matter By Giving Some More Time To The Appellant & Passing The Exparty Order Within 5 Days Of Request By The Appellant Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain [A]

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC]passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, dated 31.08.2023 for the A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ... assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] that

Umesh Bhimrao Chiprikar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1297/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Umesh Bhimrao Chiprikar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shanti Dental Hospital, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji. Harshwardhan Complea, Kolhapur Road, A/P.Jaysingpur, Jaysingpur – 416101. Maharashtra. Pan: Afkpc9558C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali – Ar Revenue By Shari Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 13.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) Ground No. 1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Umesh Bhimrao Chiprikar, Kolhapur [A]

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeal)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Act, dated 13.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2013- 14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) GROUND

Sanjay Patil, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

In the result Appeal of the Assessee Allowed

ITA 1239/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Shamrao Patil, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 2013/3, Anu Krishna Niwas E Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. Ward, Rukmini Nagar, Maharashtra – 416001. Pan: Abqpp6417K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 30.03.2024For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1) The Order Dated 30-03-2024 Hearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1063699666(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By The Hon'Ble Cit[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Sanjay Patil[A]

Section 148Section 187(3)Section 250

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, dated 30.03.2024for the A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ... hearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1063699666(1) passed under section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Hon'ble CIT[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Sanjay Patil[A] Delhi, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 2) On facts

Subba Rao Angirekula, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

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

ITA 244/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.244/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Subba Rao Angirekula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(3), Pan: Autpa2480M Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya Samudrala, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 148Section 50C

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063396973(1), dated 26/03/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income ... gains U/s. 50C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 5. On appeal, since there was no response from the assessee to the hearing notices issued with regard to the assessee’s appeal

Ravi Kumar Enantala, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 168/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.168/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ravikumar Enantala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D.No. 74-1-22/1, Ward-2(4), Yrl Complex, Mg Road, Vijayawada. Patamata, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520007. Pan: Aadpe9027C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061122578(1), dated 19/02/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 144 of the Income ... passed the order dated 14/12/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not respond

Tirumurugan Traders, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1). Erode, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Thirumurugan Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 11-B, East Kongalamman Koil Street, Ward 1(1), Erode 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Aabft2766P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 04.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Both The Appeals Are Filed By Same Assessee & Issues Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders both dated 04.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. Since both the appeals are filed by same assessee and issues raised