← 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

Sangeet Gupta, Satna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satna

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhati, Itama, Maihar, Satna Ward-1, Satna Pan:Bdipg5378M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law, As Has Been Initiated By Jao Instead Of Faceless. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Case, The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law On Account Of Not Giving Sufficient Time Of 30 Days To Assessee To Reply The Notice Under Section 148A(B). 3. On The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal In Liming Without Condoning The Delay Even When There Exist Reason & Sufficient Cause Behind The Delay So Caused Was Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. 4. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of 21,23,97,680/- Credited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee In Cash Form Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Duly Uploaded The Audit Report On E-Portal, Confirming The Source Of Cash. Further Id. Cit (A) Also Erred In Not Considering The Reply Filed In The Appeal Proceeding, As Well As In The Assessment Proceeding By Assessee, To Dismiss The Appeal Being Filed Beyond Allowable Time Having Sufficient Cause.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 18.02.2025 dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts ... initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC. Aggrieved by this order dated 23.03.2023, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC on 24.08.2023 along with a condonation petition to explain the delay of 123 days. It was submitted that the reason for the delay was that the assessee’s husband

Landmark Developers, Satna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Landmark Developers, Vs. National E-Assessment Centre Blooms Campus, N.H. 75, Panna Road, Satna-485001, M.P. Pan:Aaefl2527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.02.2025 In Which The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Under Section143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) On 14.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That, The Assessment Order Has Been Passed By Nfac & No Designation Of Ao Is Mentioned In The Assessment Order Which Is Illegal & Unjustified. 2. That, The Digital Signature In The Assessment Order Are Not Verified & It Does Not Amount To Signing Of Assessment Order By Ao. Hence, The Whole Assessment Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 3. That, The Ld. Cit Appeal Is Unjustified In Holding The Addition Of Rs. 30,03,163.00 By Applying Sec. 43Cb Of The Act Without The Considering The Fact That Same Is Not Applicable To The Project Started Prior To 01.04.2017. 4. That Sec 43Cb Is Applicable Only Where There Agreement Exist Between The Land Owner & Developer Whereas In The Present Case The Assessee Firm Itself Carrying

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.02.2025 in which the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed against the order ... r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) on 14.04.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That, the assessment order has been passed by NFAC and no designation of AO is mentioned in the assessment order which is illegal and unjustified. 2. That, the digital signature in the assessment order

Ashok Bricks Industries Pvt Ltd, Belpahar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 455/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.429, 430, 431, 454 & 455/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Ay : 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2014-2015) Ashok Bricks Industries Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income Tax Officer (Tds), Main Road, Po: Belpahar, Sambalpur R.S., Jharsuguda-768218 Pan No. : Aadca 6930 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Kumar Kedia, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr/ Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 31.05.2023, 20.05.2025, 24.09.2020 & 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2014-2015. 2. At The Outset, Ld.Ar We Find That Appeals Of The Assesee In Ita No.429/Ctk/2025 For A.Y.2015-2016 Is Delayed By 737 Days. Ita No.430/Ctk/2025 For A.Y.2016-2017 Is Delayed By 06 Days. Ita No.431/Ctk/2025 For A.Y.2017-2018 Is Delayed By 249 Days. Ita No.454/Ctk/2025 For A.Y.2014-2015 Is Delayed By 639 Days & Ita No.455/Ctk/2025 For A.Y.2017-2018 Is Delayed By 639 Days. In This Regard, The Assesee Has Filed Condonation Application In Each Of The Above Files Supported By Affidavits Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Above Appeals. Ld. Cit-Dr/Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Serious

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR/

Bench : These are five appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 31.05.2023, 20.05.2025, 24.09.2020 & 27.09.2023 for the assessment years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2014-2015. 2. At the outset, ld.AR we find that appeals

Ashok Bricks Industries Pvt Ltd, Belpahar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 454/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.429, 430, 431, 454 & 455/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष /Ay : 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2014-2015) Ashok Bricks Industries Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income Tax Officer (Tds), Main Road, Po: Belpahar, R.S., Jharsuguda-768218 Sambalpur Pan No.: Aadca 6930 F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Kumar Kedia, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr/ Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 31.05.2023, 20.05.2025, 24.09.2020 & 27.09.2023 For The

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR/

24/09/2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Bench : These are five appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 31.05.2023, 20.05.2025, 24.09.2020 & 27.09.2023 for the assessment years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2014-2015. 2. At the outset, Id.AR we find

Motwani Constructions Pvt. Limited, Khorda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 452/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Motwani Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack At:- Ground Floor, Samabaya Bhawan, Janpath, Khurda 751022 Pan No. : Aagcm 2496 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Order Dated 13/08/2025 Passed In Appeal No. Nfac/2012-13/10027542 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That In The Course Of Assessment, The Ao Had Disallowed The Salary Paid To The Director To An Extent Of Rs.15 Lakhs On The Ground That There Is A Delay In Deduction Of Tds & Payment Of The Same To The Credit Of The Government. It Was The Submission That The Returns Of The Directors Have Also Been Filed Wherein The Tds Has Been Claimed & The Credits Have Been Allowed. It Was The Submission That No Disallowance Is Called For In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 271C

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi order dated 13/08/2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10027542 for the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that