← 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

Manoharamma Hotel Investments Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 1650/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1650/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & S.A. No. 31/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2024] Manoharamma Hotel Investments Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, No. 3, Sarangapani Corporate Ward 4(1), Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaccm8686M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Harshvardan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 47 Days. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition Filed By The Assessee, We Note That The Assessee Made Out A Case In 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Harshvardan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 144

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 47 days. Upon hearing both

Mrs. Mamtha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1074/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1074/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs Mamtha Ito बनाम/ 37, Munuswamy Achary Street, Non-Corporate Ward-19(2) Vs. Perambur,Chennai-600 011. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajupm-4190-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate) For Shri D.Anand, Advocate – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 22-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 27-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.25.00 Lacs As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act. From Para-4 Of Impugned Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee Has Failed To Attend

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate) for ShriFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 22-02-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143

Ramesh S, Chennai vs. ITO, Circle 7(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1045/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1045/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Ramesh S. Ito बनाम/ Old No.56, New No.117, Circle-7(1) Saminayakkan Street, Chennai. Vs. Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapr-6313-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 10-03-2015. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Re-Computed Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 01-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r.w.s