← 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

Shalini Srivastava, Haldwani vs. Ward 2(1)(1) Haldwani/, Haldwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 121/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year :2019-20] Shalini Srivastava Vs Ward-2(1)(1) Sheeshmahal, Opp. Haldwani Filter House, Uttarakhand Kathgodam, Haldwani, Uttarakhand-263139 Pan-Apyps8567D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Kackar, Ca Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10096852 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income, Declaring Income From House Property Of Inr 51,754/- & Income Under The Head “Other Sources” Of Inr 17,56,736/-. The Total Income Of Inr 18,08,490/- Was Claimed As Set Off Against The Current Year Losses From Business & Profession Of Inr 31,04,998/- & Thus Total Income At Inr Nil Was Declared After Claiming Of Deduction Under Chapter Via Of Inr 1,56,918/-. The Return Of Income Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. Notices U/S 143(2) Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time Which Were Not Complied With. In Absence Of Any Reply By The Assessee, Order Was Passed U/S 144 As Per Information Available & Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 13,32,38,065/- By Making Various Addition.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.07.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10096852 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of the assessment order dated

Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 765/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

Bench 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013- 14 arises out of separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] all dated 04-03-2025 confirming levy of penalty by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c), u/s 271A, and u/s 271B. 2. During

Sh. Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 764/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

Bench 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013- 14 arises out of separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] all dated 04-03-2025 confirming levy of penalty by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c), u/s 271A, and u/s 271B. 2. During

Nishant Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 763/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.764/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.765/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nishant Goyal Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1) बनाम/ House No.3135, Sector 20-D Sector-17 Vs. Chandigarh - 160020 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aqmpg-0609-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Khurana (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013- 14 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khurana (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271B

Bench 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013- 14 arises out of separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] all dated 04-03-2025 confirming levy of penalty by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c), u/s 271A, and u/s 271B. 2. During