← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Asansol vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited, Burdwan, Sanctoria

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 879/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 879/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Appellant Asansol, Aayakar Bhawan, Vivekananda Saani, Kanyapur-713341, West Bengal -Vs.- Eastern Coalfields Limited,…………………...Respondent Sanctoria, Asansol, Paschim Burdwan-713333, West Bengal [Pan:Aaace7590E] Appearances By: Shri S. Datta, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 13, 2024 O R D E R

Section 40

Member:- The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 31st March, 1 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Eastern Coalfields Limited 2023. The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds:- “1. whether ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs.248.19 Crs. being expenses for ‘Overburden Removal Adjustment’ despite the fact that the assessee-company had not produced documentary evidences to corroborate its claim during

Ramasubramaniam Sridhar Paul, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 19(7), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 973/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.973/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramasubramaniam Sridhar Paul Ito बनाम 334/45B, B-Block, Flat 201-202 Urban Ville Non-Corporate Ward-19(7) Velachery Main Road, Chennai. / Vs. Velachery, Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anwps-2829-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-08-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 08-12-2019. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 10-08-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s ... grounds taken by the assessee are as under: - 1.The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [herein after referred to as CIT(A)] is erroneous in law, contrary to the facts of the case and liable to be set aside. 2.The

M/S Ramani Timber Corporation, Trichy vs. ACIT-Circle-3(1), Trichy

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1476/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1476/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ramani Timber Corporation Acit बनाम 3/132A. Tanjore Road, Opp.Udc Circle-3(1) / Vs. Kattur, Trichy-620 019. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefr-9407-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 13-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 17-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 31-12-2018. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Its Order In Ita No.125/Chny/2020 Dated 09-11-2021 Had Set Aside The Appeal To Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Pursuant To The Same, Impugned Order

For Appellant: Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 17-10-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s