← 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

Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 40/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.40/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Vs. Ito, Ward, Kudal. Bidyewadi, At Post Kalmath, Taluka Kankavli, Sindhudurg- 416602. Pan : Anipp5657R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Assailing The Order Dated 08.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A) [‘Nfac’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. Legality & Validity Of Reassessment Proceeding; 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Re-Assessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Based On Suspicious & Incorrect Information. Hence, As The Formation Of Belief Is Based On Incorrect, Suspicious & Vague Facts Same Is Unsus Tainable In Eye Of Law. 2. On The Facts & In Law, There Is Serious Jurisdictional Requirement In The Reasons Recorded By The Assessing Officer As He

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee assailing the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by LD CIT(A) [‘NFAC’] for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “I. Legality & Validity of Reassessment Proceeding; 1. On the facts ... unexplained income u/s 69A of the IT Act. 4. Since the assessee did not file any submission, Ld CIT(A) NFAC confirmed the addition made by the AO & passed the impugned order dt. 08-11-2023. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the LD CIT(A) NFAC, the appellant

Medisetty Venkata Rattaiah, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Or Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

ITA 94/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.94/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Medisetty Venkata Rattaiah, Vs. The Assistant Or Deputy Vijayawada. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pan: Abypm 1595 M Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC’] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/250/2023-24/1059100415(1), dated 27/12/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 2 r.w.s 144B of the Income ... Addition of Rs. 4,40,21,666/- U/s. 69A + Rs. 1,00,00,000/- U/s. 69 of the Act]. Accordingly, the Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi passed the assessment order dated 29/3/2022 and determined the total income at Rs.5,40,21,666/-. Aggrieved by the order

Suresh Kumaresan Asari (Deceased), Represented by Wife Mrs. Suda Suresh, Marthandam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nagercoil

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

ITA 1525/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1525/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suresh Kumaresan Asari Assistant Commissioner Of (Deceased), V. Income Tax, (Rep. By Wife Smt. Suda Suresh, Circle -1, No. 6/25/2, Main Road, Nagercoil. Marthandam, Kanyakumari Dist – 629 165. [Pan: Acfpa-9729-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate For Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate for Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 143(3)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.10.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, drew our attention to the ground ... assessee, then filed a copy of death certificate and stated that, the assessee died on 22.04.2021. The ld. CIT(A), passed appellate order i.e., NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 27.10.2023, after the death of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, took us through the appellant order

Hbs Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailhbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 505 Ceejay House, Dr. Income Tax- 7(1)(2) Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc1641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mandar Vaidya Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2024 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. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Appellant'S Appeal As 'Delayed Solely Because The Appeal, In The First Instance, Was Filed Manually & Not Electronically. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Misdirected Himself In Not Appreciating That Failure To File The Appeal Electronically, In The First Instance Is, At Best, A Procedural Defect & The Difference Between 'Manual' & 'Electronic' Is, Merely Of Form. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not, In The Given Circumstances, Justified In Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Fell In Error In Not Appreciating That Plurality Of Objects Was Not Precluded In The Purposes Contemplated U/S.11(2) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 11(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Appellant's appeal as 'delayed solely because