← 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

Rasun Exports Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 435/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rasun Exports Pvt. Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O. Katrapati & Associate, Circle – 3(1), 1-1-298/2/B/3, Sowbhagya Hyderabad. Avenue Apartments, 1St Floor, Ashok Nagar, Street No.1 – 500020, Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan : Aabcr0773P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad, Ca Appeared For Shri Ka Sai Prasad, Ca. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.07.2024 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, CA appeared for Shri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50C

This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.02.2014 for the AY 2017-18 on the following grounds : 2 “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in confirming ... towards capital gains. 4 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding as under : “5. Decision : I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, Moreover, all notices were

B P Poddar Hospital & Medical Research Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 5(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 714/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 714/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 B.P. Poddar Hospital & Medical Research Ltd.,…………………………………………Appellant 18, Rabindra Sarani, Poddar Court, 9Th Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaccb1618G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-5(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A.K. Meena, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 02, 2024 O R D E R

Section 2Section 253Section 3Section 5

instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1 B.P. Poddar Hospital & Medical Research Ltd. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17th August, 2023 passed for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred ... Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT- , Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Kaizen Industries, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 29, Kolkata

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

ITA 485/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kaizen Industries,………….………………………Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aaefk2373E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……..Respondent Circle-29, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 02, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1 Kaizen Industries National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 28th February, 2024 passed for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The appeal of the assessee before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority against the assessment ... Income Tax, Circle-29, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT- , Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order