← 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

Late Basheerunnisa Begum Sahebzadi, Represented by Lr. Sahibzadi Rasheed Unnisa Begum, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 271/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.271/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2017-18) Late Basheerunnisa Begum Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahebzadi, Represented By L.R. Ward-9(4), Sahibzadi Rasheed Unnisa Hyderabad. Begum, Hyderabad. Pan: Ahups 5642K (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 282

assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061496729(1), dated 26/02/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income ... following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is void ab initio as the order was passed against a person who expired on 28/07/2020. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Palaniappan Maheswaran, Namakkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thiruchengodu

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

ITA 277/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 277/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Palaniappan Maheswaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.96, Pannakadu, Velur Road, Ward 1, Valarigate, Suriyampalayam Post, Tiruchengode Tiruchengodu, Namakkal District – 637 209. [Pan: Anvpm 1287D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 2Section 250Section 251Section 69A

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 12.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The registry has noted delay of 52 days in filing the appeal. Considering ... grounds and other submissions to be made at the time of Appeal hearing, the order U/S 250 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ),NFAC may be cancelled and justice rendered. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has withdrawn the ground No.2. Hence, this ground is dismissed

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai vs. Sjlt Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 688/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sjlt Textiles, 2E, 2Nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: All The Above Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A
Section 80I

MEMBER: All the above three appeals are filed by the Revenue against separate orders dated 30.03.2023 and 31.03.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. 2. Since issues raised in these three appeals are similar, basing

Incometax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Sjlt Textiles, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 687/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sjlt Textiles, 2E, 2Nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: All The Above Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A
Section 80I

MEMBER: All the above three appeals are filed by the Revenue against separate orders dated 30.03.2023 and 31.03.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. 2. Since issues raised in these three appeals are similar, basing

Incometax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Sjlt Textiles, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 686/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.686, 687 & 688/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sjlt Textiles, 2E, 2Nd Floor, Prince Arcade Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai 600 034. Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan: Aaics2028M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: All The Above Three Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A
Section 80I

MEMBER: All the above three appeals are filed by the Revenue against separate orders dated 30.03.2023 and 31.03.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. 2. Since issues raised in these three appeals are similar, basing

M/S. Serene Senior Living Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coporate Circle -2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1349/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 1349/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Serene Senior Living Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.484-485, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle 2, Chennai – 600 008. Coimbatore [Pan: Aaccc 9574C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36Section 37(1)

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 21.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The registry has noted delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. Considering ... deposed at paras 3 of adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is erroneous in law and opposed to facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in disposing the appeal