← 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

Kanaiyalal Hemendra Vyas, Dhoraji vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1) Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, these two appeals of the assessee (In ITA 306&

ITA 307/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 306 & 307/Rjt/2023 (निर्धररणवध/ Assessment Year: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Kanaiyalal Hemendra Vyas Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd – Sudhrai Colony, Station Road, Nr. 2(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Race Railway Station, Dhoraji (Guj) - 360410 Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्यीलेख्सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akypv3966G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69B

against the separate orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), dated 29.06.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... account by considering it as income from alleged unaccounted and unexplained source of money u/s. 69B of the Act and the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming it. 4. Brief facts of the case that the appellant is an individual, carrying on business of Trading of agriculture

Kanaiyalal Hemendra Vyas, Dhoraji vs. Income Tax Office, Ward - 2(2)(1), Rajkot, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, these two appeals of the assessee (In ITA 306&

ITA 306/RJT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 306 & 307/Rjt/2023 (निर्धररणवध/ Assessment Year: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Kanaiyalal Hemendra Vyas Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd – Sudhrai Colony, Station Road, Nr. 2(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Race Railway Station, Dhoraji (Guj) - 360410 Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्यीलेख्सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akypv3966G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69B

against the separate orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), dated 29.06.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... account by considering it as income from alleged unaccounted and unexplained source of money u/s. 69B of the Act and the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming it. 4. Brief facts of the case that the appellant is an individual, carrying on business of Trading of agriculture