← 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

ACIT -15(1) (2), Mumbai vs. Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 833/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-15(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. Haware Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 413-416, Vardhaman Market, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Aabch3858F ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Devendra Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 24.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Devendra Jain, Adv
Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 24bSection 250

GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as [‘NFAC’] dated 24.11.2021 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 2 ITA No. 833 Mum 2022-Haware Constructions Pvt. Ltd. referred ... Aggrieved with this order of AO assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT (A)-24 Mumbai. 6. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) vide his order dated 24.11.2021 deleted both the additions made by the AO. While deciding the matter relating to addition under section 22 amounting

Kokan Mercantila Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-20(2), Mumbai

In the result we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct to allow the deduction u/s

ITA 651/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, 1St Floor, Mazagaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aaaak2527P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-20(2), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. M. Subramanian, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)

GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as [‘NFAC’] dated 21.12.2021 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as [‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year