← 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

Swarn Ganga Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1) Now DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 675/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 68

grounds of appeal in view of above factual matrix: 1. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing the order in contravention of provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on facts, circumstances ... legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 95,70,882/- by erroneously holding that cash deposit in bank during demonetization period is from unexplained sources even when : a. The said cash deposit

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 343/AHD/2022[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 1996-97 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. The Dy.Cit Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vs Circle-1(1)(1) Race Course Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacg 8540 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar & Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”), Which Was Filed Against The Order Of By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) U/S.143(3) R.W.S 254 Regarding The Unpaid Electricity Duty Under Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 1996-97. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit Asst. Year : 1996-97

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”), which was filed against the order of by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) u/s.143(3) r.w.s ... अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC), Delhi 5. "वभागीय ""त"न"ध , आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत

Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 856/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Ashok Chandrabhan V The Income Tax Officer, Khandave, S Ward-3(1), Nashik. At Post Village Pimpalnare, Dindori, Nashik, Maharashtra – 422004. Panl: Daqpk6919D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ganesh Budruk – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 23.02.2024.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,06,000Out Of The Total Addition Of Rs. 10,06,000 Made By The A.O. Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits In Bank Account During Demonetization Period Without Appreciating That The Said Cash Deposits Ashok Chandrabhan Khandave [A]

Section 250Section 68

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], u/sec.250 of the Act dated 23.02.2024.The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9