← 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

Muroor Ramesh Nayak, Sullia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 1098/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavmuroor Ramesh Nayak The Income Tax Officer 1/1, Muroor Beejathadka Ward - 1, Puttur Vs. Mandekolu, Sullia Tq. 574256 Pan – Ajjpn9644H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2004-25/1064225940(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Fact Of The Case That That The Assessee, An Individual, Prior To His Retirement, Was An Employee Of Forest Department. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Impugned Year On 31.03.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,88,170/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny In Order To Verify The Source Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetisation Period. 3. During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee While Attending The Proceedings, Filed A Written Reply Explaining The Source Of Cash Deposits. However, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Did Not Agree With The Replies Of The Assessee & Added An Amount Of Rs.11,00,000/- To The Returned Income.

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “A” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Prakash Chand