← 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

Bollam Sampath Kumar Jewellers Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 265/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 265/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bollam Sampath Kumar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Jewellers (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Warangal Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb4496H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

आदेश/ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08/02/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds: Page 1 of 9 ITA No 265 of 2024 Bollam Sampath Kumar Jewellers ... income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC was also initiated separately. 4. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 970/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

MEMBER: These appeals by the assessee are filed against the three separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15, vide orders dated 23.02.2024. 2. The assessee is a trust and has not filed its return of income ... penalty Rs.5,000/- U/s. 271F of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, assessee preferred three separate appeals before the ld.CIT(A)/ NFAC, on 09.12.2022. Order of the AO Date of Date of Delay in order appeal filed filing the Passed with CIT appeal (A) Assessment order 29/03/2022

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 969/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

MEMBER: These appeals by the assessee are filed against the three separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15, vide orders dated 23.02.2024. 2. The assessee is a trust and has not filed its return of income ... penalty Rs.5,000/- U/s. 271F of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, assessee preferred three separate appeals before the ld.CIT(A)/ NFAC, on 09.12.2022. Order of the AO Date of Date of Delay in order appeal filed filing the Passed with CIT appeal (A) Assessment order 29/03/2022

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 968/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

MEMBER: These appeals by the assessee are filed against the three separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15, vide orders dated 23.02.2024. 2. The assessee is a trust and has not filed its return of income ... penalty Rs.5,000/- U/s. 271F of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, assessee preferred three separate appeals before the ld.CIT(A)/ NFAC, on 09.12.2022. Order of the AO Date of Date of Delay in order appeal filed filing the Passed with CIT appeal (A) Assessment order 29/03/2022

Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 69A

RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated 30.01.2024. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the ld.CIT ... addition u/s.69 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but could not succeeded. The Ld.CIT(A), NFAC for the reasons stated in their appellate order, confirmed the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee

Senthurpandi Pathirakali Muthu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tuticorin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and stay petition of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1713/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1713/Chny/2024 & S P No.30/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1713/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Senthurpandi Pathirakali Muthu, The Income Tax Officer, No.1F152, Maghilchipuram, Vs. Ward 1, Chidambaranagar S.O. Tuticorin. Madathur, Tuticorin 628 008. Pan: Akipp 1641G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Petitioner) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G. Vairava Subramanian, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. Ita No.1713/Chny/2024 & Sp 30/2024

For Appellant: Shri. G. Vairava Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54

MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 04.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. ITA No.1713/Chny/2024 & SP 30/2024 2. The registry has noted delay of 191 days in filing