← 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

Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 993/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Kolkata /Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aaact9984H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 27/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing The Order Exparte Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. 2. For That The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,81,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Capital Including Share Premium By Wrongly Applying The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons Ltd. 222 Itr 344. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

I.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd. Income tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Kolkata /Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [PAN : AAACT9984H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate

Sri. Biswajit Bera, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-27(3), Haldia

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1134/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Biswajit Bera Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(3), C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. Vs Haldia 7, C.R. Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700072 [Pan : Blwpb4251N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 152 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. We Find That The Assessee Has Placed An Affidavit Dated 19/01/2024, Stating Therein The Reasons For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal With A Prayer To Condone The Delay. The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit Are Reproduced Below:- “4. That The Said Delay Of 151 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Appellant Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Is Not Intentional But The Said Delay Is Due To The Following Reasons & Circumstances: -

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, D/R
Section 250

filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata against the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18 e) That the Grounds of Appeal and the papers required for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income ... filed die Appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, against the sail impugned order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi.” 2.1. On perusal of the above reasons stated in the affidavit, we find that the delay on the part of the assessee

Mr. Kamalchand Ashok Mehta, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 92/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.92/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Mr. Kamalchand Ashok Mehta Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 27/13, Maruthi Apartments, Income Tax, Ekambareshwarar Agraharam Street, Corporate Circle 1(2), Park Town, Chennai- 600 003. Chennai- 600 034. [Pan: Aeypa1700P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 01.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 02.03.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 256 Days. To Condone The Said Delay, The Assessee Filed Delay Condonation Petition. Upon Hearing Both The Parities & Perusal Of The Arguments

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 250Section 69A

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the NFAC [CIT(A)], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find the present appeal was filed with a delay of 256 days. To condone the said delay, the assessee filed ... assessee raised eight grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, is justified in confirming the order of AO by violating the principles of natural justice. 4. We note that the assessee is an individual filed

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 88/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.88/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 10, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Income Tax/Ito, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabct0551H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 16.11.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Addl./Jcit(A), Varanasi] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A) In Treating Employees’ Pf Contribution As Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P. Selva Moorthy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the NFAC [Addl./JCIT(A), Varanasi] for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of ld. Addl./JCIT(A) in treating employees’ PF contribution

Sri Arumuga Enterpirse Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 43/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.43/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Sri Arumuga Enterprise Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 64, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 018. Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaacn3386M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 30.11.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised Six Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether Nfac [Cit(A)] Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer As Exparte The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the NFAC [CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised six grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for consideration as to whether NFAC ... section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Having aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC [CIT(A)], wherein, the order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed for non-compliance. Therefore, having aggrieved by the order of the NFAC

Raghavan Srinivasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 265/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.265/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2022-23 Mr.Raghavan Srinivasan Vs. Ito Door No.21, Block “T” Corporate Ward-3(1), Xi Street, Anna Nagar Chennai Chennai-600040. [Pan: Abips5129D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised Give Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of Ao Ex-Parte Of Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee raised give grounds of appeal, amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether ... NFAC, Delhi is justified in confirming the order of AO ex-parte of assessee. 2 I.T.A. No.265/Chny/2024 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee challenged the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the AO u/s.143(3) read with 263 of the Act before CIT(A) challenging the action

Kamaludeen, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 110/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.110/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Mr.Kamaludeen, Vs. Ito No.59, Denkanikotta Road, Ward-1, Opposite To R.C.Church, Hosur. Shanti Nagar(West), Hosur-635109. [Pan: Ajdpk0299D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 I.T.A. No.110/Chny/2024 2. The assessee raised five grounds of appeal, amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration ... whether the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is justified in confirming the order of AO by dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of section 249(4)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We note that the assessee is an individual. The AO issued notice