← 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

Vishal Krishna, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2258/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishal Krishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. T-27, New No. T-3, Income Tax, 12Th Street, Anna Nagar S.O., Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpv0851L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 105 days. The assessee filed

K274 Uthukuli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Tirupur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2133/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2133/Chny/2025 यनिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. K274 Uthukuli Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Vs. Ward 1(2), Credit Society Ltd., Tirupur 1. Uttukuli Post, Uttukuli, Tirupur – 638 751 Pan: Aabak 4347E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Sumedha, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sumedha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

BALAGANESH, AM: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld.CIT(A), in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069275050(1) dated 30.09.2024 for the assessment year :- 2 -: 2020-21 against ... These three appeals at the instance of the assessees are directed against different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 30.09.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant assessment years

Pavan Balan, Nilgiris vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ooty

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

ITA 2116/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2116/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pavan Balan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 63A Maruti, Mount Pleasant, Coonoor, Ward 1, Ooty. Nilgiris 643 102. [Pan: Aihpp9673P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Vijayakumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijayakumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. In the grounds of appeal, besides challenging assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income ... Studio India (P.) Ltd. V. ITO in W.A. No. 781 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025 and prayed to quash the assessment order passed by the NFAC without issuing notice under section 148A(d) of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.2116/Chny/25 5. The ld. DR Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT supported the order passed

Subramanian, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Erode

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

ITA 1823/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1823/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Subramanian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 78, Co-Operative Colony, Vilankurichi, Ward 1(4), Coimbatore 641 035. Erode. [Pan:Cerps9236R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha M. Mullamudi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Samatha M. Mullamudi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration

M/S. Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1781/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1781/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. B, 301, Block B, Tvs Emerald Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Green Hills, No. 345/2B, Tambaram. Nedungundram, Ngo Nagar, Alapakkam, Perungalathur, Chennai 600 063. [Pan:Adjpn9359H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 293 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 293 days. The assessee filed