← 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

A S T Engineers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (1) Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2042/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaa S T Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), C-208, A/6, Esteem Complex, New Delhi. Savitri Sheikh Sarai Phase I, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aabca4051F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalyan Chand, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 29.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Ld. Addl/Jcit Has Erred In Totally Ignoring The Submissions Made By The Assessee From The Time To Time Both Manually & Electronically & Thus Violated The Principles Of Natural Justice. He Has Wrongly Stated That No Reply Has Ever Been Filled By The Assessee During Appellate Proceedings & As Such Order Passed By Him Is Perverse. 2. Ld. Addl/Jcit Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Finance Cost Of Rs.14,33,264/- Without Properly Considering The Facts Of The Case.” 3. In This Case, Assessing Officer Made Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest Paid Amounting To Rs.14,33,264/-.

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Chand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Date of Order : 25.07.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 29.02.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. Ld. Addl/JCIT has erred

Raj Enterprises, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1072/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarraj Enterprises, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (4), 123, Kirti Nagar, Sector 15, Gurgaon. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aatfr7534R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahavir Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahyathis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 16.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal In A Summary Manner Without Adjudicating The Grounds On The Basis Of Documents Submitted As Additional Evidence During Appellate Proceedings. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Plain Fact That Income Has Been Taxed At Rs. 79695160/- In Place Of Total

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144

SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 16.01.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 732/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.732/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar The Income Tax Officer 4, Jivraj Park बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(7) Nr. Vejalpur Ahmedabad V/S. Near State Bank Of India Jivraj Park Ahmedabad – 380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adupt 1202 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31/12/2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)” in short] arising out of the assessment order dated 29/11/2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under ... assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte Order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being

Khimji Ramdas India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2) Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The 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 To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

For Appellant: Shri Aatish Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr DR
Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

आदेश The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the 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