← 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

Hi-Style India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 2(2)/CIT(A), Chennai

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

ITA 910/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.910/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 Hi-Style India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1652 G, 2Nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 040. Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aacch2545L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Babu Peram, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

For Appellant: Shri Babu Peram, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee raised 2 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration

Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 608/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hyundai Motor India V. Tax, Limited, Non Corporate Circle – 8(1), Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Chennai – 600 034. Industrial Park, Irungatukottai, Sriperumbudurtaluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. [Pan: Aaach-2364-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 43BSection 92

RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appealinstituted by the assessee is against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14 vide order dated 12.01.2024. :-2-: ITA. No:608/Chny/2024 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal

Lazerr India, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly

ITA 193/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.192 & 193/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/S.Lazerr India, 9, Old No.6, Vyasar Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabfl 4079 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : The Ito, Ncw-1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Hari Babu, Ca : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit : 03.07.2024 : 21.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)"), Delhi, Both Dated 05.12.2023 For Assessment Years (Hereinafter In Short "Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Doesn'T Press Ground Nos.11-13 For Ay 2016-17, Which Is Regarding The Claim Of Loss During The Floods. Therefore, The Same Stands Dismissed. :: 2 ::

Section 147Section 40Section 40b

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Brahmar Cellulose Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 189/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.189/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Brahmar Cellulose Products Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Ameen Manors, S1 & S2, Income Tax, Second Floor, B Block, No. 138, Corporate Circle 1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadcb3888M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. This appeal was filed on 23.01.2024 and after scrutiny, the Registry fixed the date of hearing ... treating the reassessment proceedings as valid in law. 4. In this regard, we note that the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] issued notice intimating the date of hearing to the assessee. The assessee filed written submissions. The ld. CIT(A), considering the statement of facts given in Form 35 and written

Kundarapalli Narashiman Natarajan, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 1800/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1800/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Kundarapalli Narashiman The Income Tax Officer, Natarajan, Vs. Ward-1, No.144, Madras Road New Pet, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri – 635 001. Pan: Aempn 8708C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064419040 (1) Dated 29.04.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 24.03.2022. 2. The Common Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To Estimating Income By Applying Profit Rate Of 8% By Treating The Deposits Made As Turnover For An Amount Of Rs.13,20,33,640/-And Also Addition Made By Ao Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period In Specified Bank Notes Amounting To Rs.1,65,28,590/- Added U/S.69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Also The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Is Dismissal For Default On The Part Of The Assessee & No Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

added u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also the order of CIT(A)-NFAC is dismissal for default on the part of the assessee and no adjudication on merits. 3. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated ... assessment is 144 assessment i.e., best judgment assessment and assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard and moreover, the CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal for default without speaking on merits. The ld.AR took us through the order of CIT(A)-NFAC and read out para