← 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

Sanskrut Infrabuild LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 246 & 247/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Sanskrut Infrabuild Llp, The Income Tax Officer, 401 Tilakraj Complex, बनामVs Ward-5(2)(3), . Panchvati 1St Lane, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Acsfs6952R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 248 & 249/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (2018-19) Sanskrut Infrabuild Llp, The Income Tax Officer, 401 Tilakraj Complex, बनामVs Ward-5(2)(3), . Panchvati 1St Lane, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Acsfs6952R

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. The Learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition/disallowance of Rs.2,79,78,519- made by Learned AO on account of Unexplained Unsecured Loans and added the same ... total income. The Addition confirmed by the learned CTT(A) NFAC deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now. 2. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has in not properly appreciating the facts, various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have

Sanskrut Infrabuild LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 246 & 247/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Sanskrut Infrabuild Llp, The Income Tax Officer, 401 Tilakraj Complex, बनामVs Ward-5(2)(3), . Panchvati 1St Lane, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Acsfs6952R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 248 & 249/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (2018-19) Sanskrut Infrabuild Llp, The Income Tax Officer, 401 Tilakraj Complex, बनामVs Ward-5(2)(3), . Panchvati 1St Lane, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Acsfs6952R

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. The Learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition/disallowance of Rs.2,79,78,519- made by Learned AO on account of Unexplained Unsecured Loans and added the same ... total income. The Addition confirmed by the learned CTT(A) NFAC deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now. 2. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has in not properly appreciating the facts, various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have

Sanskrut Infrabuild LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 246 & 247/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2016-2017 & 2017-2018) Sanskrut Infrabuild Llp, The Income Tax Officer, 401 Tilakraj Complex, बनामVs Ward-5(2)(3), . Panchvati 1St Lane, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Acsfs6952R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 248 & 249/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (2018-19) Sanskrut Infrabuild Llp, The Income Tax Officer, 401 Tilakraj Complex, बनामVs Ward-5(2)(3), . Panchvati 1St Lane, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Acsfs6952R

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. The Learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition/disallowance of Rs.2,79,78,519- made by Learned AO on account of Unexplained Unsecured Loans and added the same ... total income. The Addition confirmed by the learned CTT(A) NFAC deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now. 2. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has in not properly appreciating the facts, various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have

Gopal Chandra Bagui, Uluberia vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Range 146, Kolkata

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

ITA 3013/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Gopal Chandra Bagui………….…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Uluberia, Jagadishpur, Howrah-711315. [Pan: Adwpb9619F] Vs. Ito, Ward-46(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Biswajit Sarkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi 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 Did Not File His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16. As Per Information Available With The Department, The Assessee Has Sold An Immovable Property For A Sale Consideration Of Rs.50,14,000/-. Order U/S 148A(D) Was Passed & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Did Neither Comply Nor Made Any Submission. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Assessing Total Income Of Rs.50,14,000/- & A Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Initiated.

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.06.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi 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

Annakodiraj, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 4123/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4123/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Annakodiraj, The Income Tax Officer, 93, Kankanankinaru, Vs. Ward 1, Balapathiraramapuram Po, Tirunelveli Vk Pudur Tk, Tirunelveli – 627 953. Pan: Bydpa 7546K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 250

GEORGE GEORGE K: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year

Annakodiraj, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 4121/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4121/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Annakodiraj, The Income Tax Officer, 93, Kankanankinaru, Vs. Ward 1, Balapathiraramapuram Po, Tirunelveli Vk Pudur Tk, Tirunelveli – 627 953. Pan: Bydpa 7546K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

GEORGE GEORGE K: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year

Tool Tech Enteprises Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Coimbaotore

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

ITA 3866/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3866/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tool Tech Enterprises Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 374, A P Tower, Dr. Rajendra Corporate Ward 1, Prasad Road, 100 Feet Road, Coimbatore. Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. [Pan: Aadct9931H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanabhan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 963 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of Notarized Affidavit. In The Petition, The Assessee Has Submitted As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 253

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 963 days. The assessee filed petition ... made during the year. 4. That Against the assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, who vide order dated 30.01.2023 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 5. That the appellate order of the first Appellate authority was received