← 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

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1243/CHNY/2023[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1243/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Tractors & Farm Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Equipment Ltd., No. 77, Pottipatti Income Tax, Plaza, Nungambakkam High Road, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaact2761Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)] For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Placed On Record Paper Book Containing 14 Pages, Wherein, We Find Order Dated 28.09.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A) For Ay 2010-11, Order Giving Effect Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer & Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the NFAC [CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The ld. AR Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate placed on record paper book containing 14 pages, wherein, we find order dated ... favour of the assessee against which the Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT, wherein, the ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal. However, again, the NFAC [CIT(A)] issued notice dated 16.08.2023 to the assessee for the same assessment year 2010-11 and the assessee complied with the said notice