← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi vs. Shri Bhooteshwar Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Sirsi

The appeal of the revenue is DISMISSED as withdrawn

ITA 305/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. Ita No. 305/Pan/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Income Tax Officer Ward-(1), Sirsi. . . . . . . . Appellant बिधम / V/S Shri Bhooteshwar Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamita Cp Bazar, Opp. Union Bank, Sirsi, Sirsi - 581401 Pan : Aauas5459A . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Assessee Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Instituted U/S 253(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ In Short] Challenges The Order Dt. 21/05/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ In Short] Which In Turn Arisen From The Regular Assessment Order Dt. 22/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ In Short] For Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ In Short]

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(2)

short] challenges the order dt. 21/05/2025 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ in short] which in turn arisen from the regular assessment order dt. 22/09/2022 passed u/s 143(2) of the Act by the National Faceless e-Asstt. Centre, Delhi

Saurashtra Cement Limited, Porbandar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.307/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Near Railway Station, बनाम Income Tax, Jamnagar, Saurashtra Cement Factory, Jamnagar Vs. P.O. Ranavav, Adityana Road, Porbandar, Gujarat-360560 Pan : Aahfs5211J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld.Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2026 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

तिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथ"/ The Assessee  ""थ"/ The Respondent  आयकर आयु"/ CIT  आयकर आयु"(अपील)/ The CIT(A)/(NFAC), Delhi.  िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाड"फाईल/ Guard File () By order/आदेशसे

Maulana Azad College of Engineering and Technology, Patna vs. ITO Exemption, Ward-1, Patna

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

ITA 474/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Years: 2015-16 Maulana Azad College Of Engineering & Technology..…..……….……Appellant Mariam, Manzil, Anisabad, Patna-800002.. [Pan: Aabtm3371M] Vs. Ito-Exemption, Ward-1, Patna…...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D V Pathy, Sr. Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Educational Institution & Is Engaged In The Activity Of Running In Engineering College & The Assessee-Society Is Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Act. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On The Ground Of Certain Transactions & Cash Deposits Exceeding Two Lakhs Done By The Assessee With State Bank Of India. The Assessing Officer Held That The Deposits Made In The Sbi Was Not Disclosed & The Same Was Held As Unexplained Money & The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs.56,79,506/- U/S 69A Of The Act. Maulana Azad College Of Engineering & Technology 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Appeal Has Been Dismissed By Holding That The Assessee Failed To File Supporting Documents Such As Balance Sheets, Profit & Loss A/C, Bank Statements Etc. To Prove The Genuineness Of The Transaction.

Section 12ASection 148Section 250Section 69A

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.08.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year

Jyoti Gyanchandani, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 158/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.158/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Jyoti Gyanchandani V. Income Tax Office Ward- 103-B Dada Nagar, Kanpur- 1(2)(1) 208013. Kanpur-208001. Pan:Bkypg5656D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16 12 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 08 01 2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 40Section 68

BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.01.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances ... case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside and quashed. 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming an addition