← 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

Lokmangal Cooperative Bank Limited, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 1091/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotelokmangal Cooperative Bank Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Ltd., 128, Murarji Peth, Solapur. Opp. Sevasdan High School, Solapur-413001 (Mh) Pan: Aaaal 0119 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde,Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 12.09.2023 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde,DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

pronouncement : 03/04/2024 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 12.09.2023 for A.Y.2009-10 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available ... record. We find that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and the rights and liabilities of the parties herein were not adjudicated on merits. That, on perusal of Para 6.1 of the NFAC‟s order, it is seen that the assessee or its authorised representative have

Lata Mangeshkar Medical Foundation, Erandwane, Pune vs. DCIT-Exemptions-Pune, Swargate, Pune

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

ITA 1070/PUN/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotelata Mangeshkar Medical Vs Dcit (Exemptions), Foundation, Deenanath Pune. Mangeshkar Hospital, D.No. 8,13, Erandwane, Pune (Mh) Pan: Aaatl 1944 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde,Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 11.08.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathak, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde,DR
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 244A

pronouncement : 03/04/2024 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 11.08.2023 for A.Y.2018-19 as per the following grounds of appeal:- “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the assessee ... date for filing the return of income till 15/10/2018. The copy of this relevant CBDT circular had been filed by the assessee before the NFAC. The assessee had filed the return on 05/10/2018 which was within the extended due date as per the CBDT‟s order. The assessee further contends

Steel House, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1464/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1464/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Steel House, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 11, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 19(4), Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Chennai. [Pan:Aabfs0085L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 19.10.2023 Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1057223180(1) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Disposing Of The Appeal Ex Parte Without Considering The Facts Of The Case & The Submissions Made In The Proper Perspective. 2. Merits

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 68Section 69Section 69A

MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.10.2023 passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057223180(1) relevant to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds