← 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

Orissa Rural & Urban Developmenet Cooperative Limited., Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, Bhadrak

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.461/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.462/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Orissa Rural & Urban Development Vs Ito, Ward- Bhadrak, Bhadrak Cooperative Limited At:- Opposite Of Government Girls School, P.O/P.S:- Jagannathpur,Dist- Bhadrak, 756100 Pan No. : Aaaao 3396 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Viijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Viijay Singh, Sr. DR

Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi. Both the orders dated 19/06/2025 passed in separate Appeal Nos. NFAC/2015-16/1033677422 and NFAC/2018-19/10367745 for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2019-20. 2. It was the submission that the during

Orissa Rural & Urban Development Cooperative Limited, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Bhadrak, Bhadrak

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.461/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.462/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Orissa Rural & Urban Development Vs Ito, Ward- Bhadrak, Bhadrak Cooperative Limited At:- Opposite Of Government Girls School, P.O/P.S:- Jagannathpur,Dist- Bhadrak, 756100 Pan No. : Aaaao 3396 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Viijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Viijay Singh, Sr. DR

Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi. Both the orders dated 19/06/2025 passed in separate Appeal Nos. NFAC/2015-16/1033677422 and NFAC/2018-19/10367745 for the assessment year 2016-17 and 2019-20. 2. It was the submission that the during

Chills China Rao, Nabarangpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.426/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Chilla China Rao Vs Ito, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore Telugu Street, Nabarangpur, 764059 Pan No. : Arrpr 9207 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Application Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac),Delhi Dated 11/03/2025 Passed In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/10151453 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Adjournment Letter Mentioning As Follows :-

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A),National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC),Delhi dated 11/03/2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10151453 for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee

Milanben Narendra Choksi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.404/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Milanben Narendra Choksi Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), बनाम/ Mu, Wd.No.3/628, Navapura Surat, Room No.118, First Floor, Vs. Karva Road, Surat-395 003 Aaykar Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aappc 8557 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 250

Milanben N Choksi 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer of passing ex-parte order u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. On the facts ... circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in rejecting book results of assessee by invoking provisions of Section145 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 20.01.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, the ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017- 18, which in turn arises out of assessment order

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Saffron Green International Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 958/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(2)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 16.07.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short