← 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

Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1999/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti Assistant Commissioner, 27/31, 4Th Floor, Bootwala Vs. Circle 23(1), Mumbai Building, Old Hanuman Lane, 113, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Kalbadevi 400002 Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpl4596N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Ajinkya Vaishampayan /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 24.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Ajinkya VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

RENU JAUHRI [A.M]: These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] dated 24.01.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year ... assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 1998/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the income assessed by the Ld. Assessing Officer at Rs.2,36,89,979/- without adjudicating all the grounds and basically based on information derived in the course

Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1998/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Jagdish Raghunathji Lahoti Assistant Commissioner, 27/31, 4Th Floor, Bootwala Vs. Circle 23(1), Mumbai Building, Old Hanuman Lane, 113, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Kalbadevi 400002 Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpl4596N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Ajinkya Vaishampayan /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 24.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Ajinkya VaishampayanFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

RENU JAUHRI [A.M]: These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] dated 24.01.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year ... assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 1998/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the income assessed by the Ld. Assessing Officer at Rs.2,36,89,979/- without adjudicating all the grounds and basically based on information derived in the course

Sh. Ashok Kumar, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalashok Kumar, Assessment Unit, 19, Sitapur Mazara, Jwalapur, Income Tax Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Vs. Department. Pan-Btupk9604E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10271519 Dated 10.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Agriculturist Having No Any Other Source Of Income Than Agricultural Income. Since, The Income From Agricultural Operations Is Exempt From Tax, He Was Not Obliged To File The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited A Sum Of Rs.76,00,000/- In Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Initiated Reassessment Proceedings In The Case Of Assessee By Recording Reasons That Income To The Extent Of Rs.76,00,000/- Has Escaped Assessment In The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act. Accordingly, Notices U/S 148 Was Issued On 26.03.2022. In Response To Which Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 12.04.2022 Ashok Kumar Vs. Ito Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- From Agriculture Activity & Claimed The Same As Exempt From Tax. The Assessing Officer Passed The Reassessment Order Wherein He Has Made The Additions On Account Of Agriculture Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources & Further Made Additions Of Rs.76,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited During Demonetization As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act. The Ao Further Made Additions Of Rs.2,67,195/- As Against Nil Income Declared Towards Bank Interest.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘the Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10271519 dated 10.04.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case