← 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

M/S. Suprativa, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 308/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.308/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) M/S Suprativa, Vs Ito, Ward-2(2), Cuttack Fakirpada, Cuttack-754100 Pan No. :Aasas 9915 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 10.08.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1055034411(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Society Registered U/S.12A Of The Act. It Was The Further Submission That Form 10B Was Filed Belatedly. It Was The Submission That When The Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee, The Same Was Processed By Issuance Of Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Entire Expenditure Claimed By The Assessee Was Disallowed By Raising A Demand Of Rs.5,89,164/-. On Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Upheld The Adjustment Done By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Belatedly Filing Of Form 10B By The Assessee. Consequently, The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Not Received Any Show Cause Notice

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.08.2023, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055034411(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee