← 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

Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Tiruppur vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1404/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1404/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Vinayagapuram 1St Street, Circle 1, 12, Royapuram Main Road, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 601. [Pan:Abdpt4540J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2023 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” In Short).

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 06.03.2025 bringing the LTCG of Rs. 21,77,638/-. The Appellant filed an appeal before the CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi on the order of the Ld. AO passed on 06.03.2025, challenging that the details were self- evidentiary submitted before it, and the same were

Gaurav Logistics, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1111/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Logistics, Income Tax Officer 32, Gaurav Vara, New Avadi Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffg-1902-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Dated 14.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed A Memorandum Of Addition Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of Gaurav Logistics

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 250

appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 14.02.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for the assessment year ... Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai [JAO], which has been referred to in at para 3.2 of the assessment order of the Assessment Unit, NFAC. However, we note that consequent upon the Notification issued by the CBDT dated 29.03.2022 of formation of a Scheme namely “the e- Assessment of Income Escaping

Gunomal Santumal Rochlani, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 4299/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Gunomal Santumal Rochlani Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), 48, Roshan Apartment, Netaji Road, Kalyan Vs. Ulhasnagar, Thane – 421004. Pan/Gir No. Ahppr0832B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Makhija (Virtually Appeared) Respondent By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order, Without Appreciating(Disregarding) The Facts / Reasons For Which Appellant Had Requested For Adjournment. 2. The Hon'Ble Cit(A)[Nfac] Has Failed In Appreciating That Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Merely On The Basis Of The Alleged Information Stated To Have Been Received Without Making Any Independent Enquiries. Gunomal Santumal Rochlani

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised ... passing an ex-parte order, without appreciating(disregarding) the facts / reasons for which appellant had requested for adjournment. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A)[NFAC] has failed in appreciating that Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 merely on the basis