← 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

Jai and Aditya Kelkar Eye Care and Laser Institute Private Limited, Pune vs. Circle 7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1564/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1564/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jai & Aditya Kelkar Eye Care V Circle-7 & Laser Institute Pvt. Ltd., S Pune. S.No.1219, Flat No.8, Ynis Ynios Apartments, Wrangler Paranjpe Road, Behind Hotel Vaishali, Shivajinagar, Pune - 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadcj5286H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Devadatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D.Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) On Rotation Duty Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 09.06.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC],passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 09.06.2025, emanating from order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income ... dated 21.03.2022. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), NFAC (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)") your Appellant Company submits, among others, the following grounds for your sympathetic consideration: 1. On the facts

Venkatarama Satya Surya Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 788/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.788/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-6(1), Hyderabad. Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi, Hyderabad. Pan:Athps0867M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram & Shri P. Vinod, Advocates रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 30.04.2025 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram & Shri PFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 37

Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 30.04.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.788/Hyd/2025