← 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

Solapur Construction & Fabrication Pvt Ltd, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Range-63, Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 198/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.197 & 198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20 Solapur Construction & Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Fabrication Pvt. Ltd., E-1, Mantrichandak Park, Opp. Mayur Mangal Karyalaya Bijapur Road, Solapur- 413004. Pan : Aaccs5566L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 & 14.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.197/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 40

Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that LD CIT(A)NFAC has not adjudicated the ground regarding disallowance of VAT, CGST & SGST payable for A.Y. 2018-19 but paid during the year ... facts, without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of LD CIT(A)NFAC with a direction to decide the payable for A.Y. 2018-19 but paid during the year after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee

Sollapur Construction & Fabrication Pvt Ltd, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 197/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.197 & 198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20 Solapur Construction & Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Fabrication Pvt. Ltd., E-1, Mantrichandak Park, Opp. Mayur Mangal Karyalaya Bijapur Road, Solapur- 413004. Pan : Aaccs5566L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 & 14.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.197/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 40

Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that LD CIT(A)NFAC has not adjudicated the ground regarding disallowance of VAT, CGST & SGST payable for A.Y. 2018-19 but paid during the year ... facts, without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of LD CIT(A)NFAC with a direction to decide the payable for A.Y. 2018-19 but paid during the year after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee

Sunil Kumar Mishra, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 277/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.277/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Mishra ………. Appellant (Pan: Ahppm0825R) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 21.07.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata Dated 24.12.2019. 2. Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Of Assessee Is Time Barred By 96 Days. Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By Assessee. Perusal Of The Same & Also Considering The Ratio Of I.T.A. No. 277/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra, Ay : 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144Section 246ASection 250Section 264Section 271ASection 69A

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act”) by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short Ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 21.07.2023 arising out of the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act by ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata ... illegal & void. 2. For that the Appeal Order dated 21/07/2023 was passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Income Tax Department, NFAC without considering the Grounds of Appeal and facts and circumstances of the assessee. No speaking order was passed by the appellate authority. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

M/S. Labland Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 608/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeylabland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer #01, 8Th Km, Krs Road Ward - 1(1), Mysuru Vs. Metagalli, Mysuru 570016 Pan – Aaacl2892A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062548837(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Confirming The Assessment Of A Sum Of Rs.87,39,282/- As Income From Other Sources Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2.1 The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Income Derived By The Appellant Is From Agriculture Operations, Which Is Exempt U/S.10[1] Of The Act Read With Explanation Of Section 2[1] Of The Act & Consequently, The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 250

equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC for short] is not justified in confirming the assessment of a sum of Rs.87,39,282/- as income from other sources under the facts ... pages enclosing therein copies of the following: - “1. Copy of the written submissions dated 20/07/2023 filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]/ NFAC alongwith the following :- 1.1 Annexure-1:Copy of the ITR Ack alongwith the computation of total income and financials for the Asst. year