← 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

The Vazhayoor Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Trirur

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed

ITA 580/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharythe Vazhayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant No.D1989, Head Office, Azhinhlam P.O., Ernad, Malappuram Dist., Kerala-673632 [Pan: Aacat 5682 J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Cooperative Society Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Nfac, Delhi [For Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 19.06.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under The Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Member & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Member. The Return Of 2 The Vazhayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For The A.Y. 2014-15 Was Filed On 30/03/2015 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-3, Tirur (For Short, ‘Ao’) Vide Order Dated 19/12/2016 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 1,72,40,710/- By Disallowing The Claim For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act By Holding That The Appellant Is A Cooperative Bank & Hit By The Provisions Of Section 80P(4) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH :: COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM& SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Lucknow

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

ITA 190/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 301, 3Rd Floor, Kusum Deep Income Tax-6, Lucknow New Complex Chowk, Lucknow, U.P. Pan:Aacct7404N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Dcit, Circle-6, Lucknow, Under Section 143(3) On 27.11.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order With Intangible Addition Of 50 Percent Sales Promotion Expenses Of Rs 7188348 On Estimated Basis. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing Assessment Order Which Is Contrary To The Facts & Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee, against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.02.2025, dismissing the appeal of the assessee filed against the orders of the ld. DCIT, Circle-6, Lucknow, under section ... that regard. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow, which was subsequently transferred to the NFAC. During the course of appeal proceedings, the assessee filed certain fresh evidences in the form of supporting bills for sales promotions expenses, gift items, dinner

Sanjaykumar Dalpatbhai Shah, Banaskantha vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

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

ITA 447/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.446/Ahd/2025 & 447/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Sanjaykumar Dalpatbhai Shah Assessment Unit, Nfac, बनाम/ Omkar Finance Present Juris. The Ito V/S. Paras Machinary Stores Ward-4 At Shihori, Tal-Kankrej Palanpur-385 001 Shihori Banaskantha – 385 550 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Akups 3748 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 02/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Are Ex-Parte

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 250

Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos.446/Ahd/2025 & 447/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively Sanjaykumar Dalpatbhai Shah Assessment unit, NFAC, बनाम/ Omkar Finance Present Juris. The ITO v/s. Paras Machinary Stores Ward-4 At Shihori, Tal-Kankrej Palanpur-385 001 Shihori Banaskantha – 385 550 "थायी ... captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] of even date 02/01/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Sanjaykumar Dalpatbhai Shah, Banaskantha vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

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

ITA 446/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.446/Ahd/2025 & 447/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Sanjaykumar Dalpatbhai Shah Assessment Unit, Nfac, बनाम/ Omkar Finance Present Juris. The Ito V/S. Paras Machinary Stores Ward-4 At Shihori, Tal-Kankrej Palanpur-385 001 Shihori Banaskantha – 385 550 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Akups 3748 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 02/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A) To Submit That The Same Are Ex-Parte

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 250

Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos.446/Ahd/2025 & 447/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively Sanjaykumar Dalpatbhai Shah Assessment unit, NFAC, बनाम/ Omkar Finance Present Juris. The ITO v/s. Paras Machinary Stores Ward-4 At Shihori, Tal-Kankrej Palanpur-385 001 Shihori Banaskantha – 385 550 "थायी ... captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] of even date 02/01/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred