← 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

Shanmugam Ayyappan Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 54/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmugam Ayyappan, The Income Tax Officer , Ts No.5643-5644, South 4Th Street, Vs. Ward-1, Pudukkottai – 622 001. Pudukkottai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aeopa 6661B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate Hiथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 08.12.2023. 2. The Only Effective Ground Of Appeal In This Case Is Against The Challenging Validity Of Assessment Order & Making Addition Of Cash :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 08.12.2023. 2. The only effective ground of appeal in this case is against the challenging validity of assessment order and making addition

Sri Karpagavinayagar Education and Charitable Trust, Palani vs. Income Tax Officer, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 263/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.263/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Charitable Trust, 1, Thalayuthu, Exemptions Ward, Palani 624 618. Madurai. [Pan: Aagts7098L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate & Shri B.K. Gopilal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Denying Exemption

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee raised 10 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration

M/S. Vaasautomation Private Limited, Kanchipurm vs. ACIT, Coprporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are dismissed

ITA 140/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - 2015-16 M/S.Vaasautomation India Pvt Ltd., The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Plot No.H18 & H19, Sipcot Industrial Tax(Osd), Park, Vallam Vadagal, Echoor Post, Corporate Circle-3(2), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai Kancheepuram Dist, Kanchipuram-631604. [Pan: Aaach2759N] (अपीलार्थी/Assesse) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assesse By : Shri N.Venkatasubramanian, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024

For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058073451(1) dated 20.11.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 20.11.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi ... Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. a. The Ld' Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC – Delhi (hereinafter "CIT(A)") had erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant stating that it has made only a provision for doubtful debts