← 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

Ram Niwas Singh, Jharkhand vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.285/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Ram Niwas Singh, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Ranchi Durga Bhawan, Lower Karamtolli, Ranchi-834008 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. :Bfrps 8200 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : None(Withdrawal Application Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.05.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, However, An Application For Withdrawal Of The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under :-

For Appellant: None(WithdrawalFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 16.05.2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. None appeared on behalf

Hothi Samat Keshwala, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 2(4), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 408/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 408/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Hothi Samat Keshwala Ito, Wd – 2(4), At Visavada, Via Bokhira Porbandar, Vs. Income Tax Office, Nh-8E, Porbanadar – 360575 Porbandar Road, Porbandar-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Buppk0380P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 : 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order 21.10.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 5

against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 05.08.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer vide order 21.10.2019. 2. Grounds ... accounts, and further the explanation offered by it regarding the nature and source of acquisition of such money was not found satisfactory by the NFAC(AO) in the given facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the said unexplained cash deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee

Iit Patna, Patna vs. Dc/Ac Exemption Cir Patna, Patna Bihar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.337/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Iit, Patna……………………………………………………………....Appellant Admin Block Bihta, Patna-801106. [Pan: Aaaai2401A] Vs. Dc/Ac, Exemption, Circle-Patna.……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhary, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 25, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.05.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi [The ‘Cit(A)’] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Iit Patna, Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Relied Upon Information Available Regarding: Cash Deposits: ₹10593857/- Term Deposits: ₹62,69,99,990/- Contract Receipt: ₹8,51,325/- Interest U/S 194A Of The Act : ₹31,59,501/-

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 272A(2)(e)

आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [the ‘CIT(A)’] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the Case are that the assessee, IIT Patna