← 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

Maxx Solutions, Gurgaon vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20 Maxx Solutions, Vs. Cpc, 958-960, Tower Bi, Bengaluru. 9Th Floor, Sapaze It Park, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon. Pan: Aavfm7455N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26Th October, 2019 Declaring Total Income At Rs.18,50,524/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 06.03.2020 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.5,78,203/- Was Made As Per Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A), Relying On Various Decisions, Upheld The Action Of The Ao. 3. Aggrieved With Such Order Of The Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal By Raising The Following Grounds:- “ The Ld. Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming Addition Of Rs.5,78,203/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 Without Any Base.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22nd July, 2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return

Sunil Prakash, Faridabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 727/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunil Prakash, Vs. Dcit, C/O Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension Part-1, Bengaluru. New Delhi. Pan: Afvpp5777K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th May, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Diesel Generating Set & Also Is A Contractor. He Filed His Return Of Income On 30.11.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.6,97,72,959/-. The Cpc, Bangalore, Issued Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 15Th December, 2019 Making An Addition Of Rs.1,43,36,615/- For Late Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao On The Ground That Although The Payment Has Been Made Before Due Date Of Filing Of The Return, But, Same Has Not Been Deposited Within The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)

PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25th May, 2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business