← 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

Mathaiyan Saravanakumar, Salem vs. ITO, Salem, Salem Tamilnadu

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 243/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.243/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mathaiyan Saravanakumar Acit #1/92, Kailash Nagar 4Th Cross बनाम Circle-2(1) Brinvadan Road, Fairlands Salem. / Vs. Salem-636 016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Avdps-4253-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Fca) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (FCA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(viib)Section 96

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 09-02-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer ... grounds raised by the assessee read as under: 1. The order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC dated 09.02.2023 in confirming the assessment framed by the AO is opposed to the facts of the case and is not legally maintainable. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Haja Moinudeen, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward 4, Puducherry

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

ITA 1598/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1598/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Haja Moinudeen, The Income Tax Officer, No.6, Subbiah Salai, Vs. Ward 4, Puducherry – 605 001. Puducherry. Pan: Aabph 0929C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1042664423 (1) dated 08.04.2022. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Puducherry for the assessment year ... accordingly admitted for adjudication. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Ground Nos.2 & 3, which read as under:- “2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice should

Shri Durga Devi Mundhra, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1228/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1228/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Durga Devi Mundhra Ito बनाम Sri Vilas, 18/32, Mahalakshmi Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) / Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpd-1061-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 69A

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29.09.2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer ... grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 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 sustaining addition of Rs.1,85,00,000/- under section

K Pukhraj Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 4(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4225/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailk.Pukhraj Enterprises Vs. Ito, Ward 4(2)(4) Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan 44, 3Rd Floor, Shahi Gully 4Th Floor, Zaver Bazar, Kalbadevi Mumbai Maharasthra 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck5086A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Prateek Jain Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing An Ex Parte Order, Without Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Issuing Notice Dated 31 03 2017 U/S 148 Of The Act & The Consequent Order Dated 22.12 2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Passed Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Making An Addition Of Rs.7,69,50,000/- Оп Account Of Share Premium Received On Increase In Paid-Up Share Capital, For The Reasons Mentioned In The Impugned Order Or Otherwise.

For Appellant: Prateek JainFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 148

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC for A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case