← 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

Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Aghpm 1625 Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ramprasad Tnssjms, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 31/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri Ramprasad TNSSJMS, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058010756(1), dated 17/11/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income ... immediately. 4. Finally, appeal papers were prepared for filing online on 8/4/2024. 5. The due date for filing an appeal against the order of NFAC before the Hon’ble ITAT is 17/1/2024. In the process there was a delay of 89 days………. In view of the above facts and circumstances

Smt.Venturi Padmavathi L/R of Late Ramagopal Venturi, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 114/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Smt.Venturi Padmavathi Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of Late Venturi Ramagopal Ward-2(1) D.No.78-2-16, Syamala Nagar Rajahmundry Old Somalamma Street Rajahmundry [Pan : Aixpv3542M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 147Section 270A

Padmavathi, legal representative of (late) Shri Venturi Ramagopal (assessee), against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059986032(1) dated 22.01.2024, arising 2 I.T.A. No.114/Viz/2024, A.Y.2018-19 Smt.Venturi Padmavathi L/R of (Late Vemuri Ramagopal, Rajahmundry out of order ... assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is bad in law and is not pronounced based on facts; 2. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju, Kakinada vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 109/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.109/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju Vs. Nfac Prop. M.S.N.Metals Delhi Flat No.501, Surya Pride Homes Back Side Of Collector Bunglo, Madhav Nagar [Pan : Ahzpm7335C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.109/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju Vs. NFAC Prop. M.S.N.Metals Delhi Flat No.501, Surya Pride Homes Back side of Collector Bunglo, Madhav Nagar [PAN : AHZPM7335C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से ... Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060735163(1) dated 09.02.2024, arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income

Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/VIZ/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.187/Viz/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2006-07) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aaach 4275 P Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 31/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 115W

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044557361(1), dated 8/8/2022 2 arising out of the order passed U/s. 115WE of the Income ... passed the assessment order date 19/12/2013. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, after considering the submissions of the assessee, sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed

Ebrahimsha Propietor of M/S. Premier Garment Processing, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp. Circle 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 812/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.812/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018 -19 Ebrahimsha, Proprietor Of M/S. Premier Vs. The Dy./Asstt. Commissioner Of Garment Processing, No. 5, 2Nd Cross Income Tax, Street, Cit Nagar, Thyagaraya Nagar Non Corporate Circle 7(1), H.O., Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aafpi9651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Subramanian, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Exparte Order Dated 06.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Confirmation Of Assessment Order, Wherein, The Investments Made In The Property Has Been Treated As Unexplained Investment Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Taxing The Addition At Higher Rate Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 69

appeal by the assessee is directed against the exparte order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19 challenging confirmation of assessment order, wherein, the investments made in the property has been treated as unexplained investment