← 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

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

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

ITA 875/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09 Karnataka Bank Ltd. Near Mahaveer Circle Pumpwell Kankanady Vs. Mangaluru Dcit Karnataka 575 002 Mangalore Pan No.Aabct5589K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Dated 27.9.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Is Bad Is Law & Against The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Remanding The Issue Back To The Ao For Verification. 2.1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Having Observed In His Order That All The Details Required To Comply With The Directions Of Itat Has Been Furnished By The Assessee Bank, Ought Not Have Remanded Back The Issue Again To Ao For Verification, Instead Of Allowing The Appeal In Favor Of The Assessee Bank. 2.2 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Not Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Learned Assessing Officer.: Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru Page 2 Of 6 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Is Beyond The Directions Given By The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2008-09 dated 27.9.2023. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income ... viia) as no deduction is allowed for non rural debts. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC on 26/05/2021 on the following grounds: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of Rs.31,78,00,564/- a. The learned

Prakash Amarlal Doulatani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 970/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 970/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Prakash Amarlal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward -3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Doulatani Vs. 16/318, Satyagrah Chhavni, Near Bhavnirjar, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaspd3727B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vihar Soni, A.R. Assessee By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 30/01/2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/01/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Arising Out Of The Order Dated 22.11.2018 Passed By The Ito, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Whereby & Wherunder The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of ‘On Money’ Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

instant appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

Uday Autolink Private Limited, Galaxycomplex, Naroda, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Pratyakshakar Bhawan, L Colony, Ambawadi

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

ITA 935/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 935/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Uday Autolink Private Dcit बनाम/ Limited Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. F-14, Galaxy Complex, Opp. Galaxy Cinema, Naroda, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcu3260E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Parin S Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumr Katiar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rejected The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Since The Appeal Was Barred By Limitation For 25 Days. Before Us, The Application For Condonation Of Delay Was Also Filed Which Was Also Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A). Upon Perusal Of The Same, We

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumr Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 250

instant appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section 250 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal filed by the assessee since