“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 642/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 68/422, Gandhi Nagar, Lucknow- 2(1), Lucknow-New 226001 Pan: Awgpc6261P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Sonal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 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, Dated 7.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessment Unit For The A.Y. 2018-19 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 3.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Has Been Issued By The Jao, Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act, The Entire Assessment Framed Is Bad In Law Be Quashed. 02. Because The Notice Under Section 148 Having Been Issued On 23.03.2022, Beyond The Period Of Three Years & The Total Investment In Bit Coin Trading Is Of Rs.9,63,000/-, There Being No Profit On The Same On The Contrary Being Loss, The Entire Reopening Of The Assessment Is Without Proper Verification Of Facts, Based On Wrong Facts The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 03. Because The Cit(A), Nfac, Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Upheld The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Under Section 69 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Unexplained Investment In Purchase & Sale Of Bitcoins, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, JCIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, dated 7.07.2025 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee that were filed against the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit ... facts the addition of Rs.88,55,128/- made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) be deleted. 03. Because the CIT(A), NFAC, has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has arbitrarily upheld the addition of Rs.88,55,128/- under section

M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 18.01.2024 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeals of the assessee against the orders ... Assessing Officer dated 30.12.2017. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1- The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred on facts and in law in dismissing the Ground that Notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO-6(1) Lucknow on 01.04.2016 without appreciating that Jurisdiction of case lies with DCIT

Sarfarazkhan Sarvarkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2016/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 25.08.2025 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned

Jatinkumar Patel, Chhatral Kalol vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Mehsana

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1907/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (in short “NFAC”), vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand vs. Chikhodara Sewa Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1571/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Income Tax Officer, Chikhodara Sewa Sahakari Vs. Ward-1, Mandali Ltd., Anand. Nr. Patel Wadi, Opp. Swaminarayan Temple, Chikhodra, Anand-388320. [Pan :Aaaac0897 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri S.N Divatia, With Shri Samir Vora, Ars Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S.N Divatia, with Shri Samir Vora, ARs

Section 250Section 68

been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year

M/S. Kalptaru Cotton Industries, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-5 Now Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1545/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Adjournment application filedFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

been filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for Assessment Year

Nirman, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69A

been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for Assessment Year ... following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by lower authorities is invalid, bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act merely on conjectures and surmises without

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2585/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2584 & 2585/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anil Bhagwan Turuk, V Income Tax Officer, 431/2329, Sant Tukaram S Ward-8(3), Pune. Nagar, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aappt2146K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 13.09.2022 & Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER BENCH : These two appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2020-21 dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2584/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar vs. Kanifnath Grmain Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Maldad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2247/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

investments with Co-operative Banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee which is reproduced in para 4 of his impugned appellate order, allowed the appeal of the assessee

Naveen Nath, Dineshpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 2192/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69A

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM : This is an appeal filed by the 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.2018-19dated 26.08.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section

Kankariya Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

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

ITA 1932/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. There is a delay of 44 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed ... amount of Rs.4,92,606/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 4 5 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate

Section 253(5)

Swamula Vari Mattam (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 21/08/2023 and 21/10/2025 respectively for the A.Y.2016-17. ITA No.1164/Hyd/2024: 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there

Rajani Chandrakala Ponna, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1666/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1666/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Rajani Chandrakala Vs. Income Tax Officer Ponna, Ward 16(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Amfpp2816A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri T Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against By The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.09.2025 For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri T Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR

Section 69A

आदेश/ORDER Per MANJUNATHA, G. A.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against by the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi, dated 17.09.2025 for the A.Y 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

2287/Hyd/2025 Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 21/08/2023 and 21/10/2025 respectively for the A.Y.2016-17. ITA No.1164/Hyd/2024: 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad

ITA 1277/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1277/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Vs. Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad. Pan: Amrps2069N (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Hyd/2025 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1277/Hyd/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad. Pan: Amrps2069N (Appellant) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad ("Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11/10/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Also Raised The Cross Objection For The A.Y.2017-

For Appellant: Shri K A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 65BSection 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Santhosh Super Market, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3471/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.3471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Super Market, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.337/1, Ii Avenue, Vs. Income Tax, Anna Nagar (West), Non-Corporate Circle-7(4), Chennai – 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Abafs-6089-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 147

RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 11.11.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2017-18 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income ... hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC (AO) dated 30.03.2022. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and carrying on the business of chain of Super Market dealing in household items, groceries etc for almost two decades. The assessee filed its return

Kandasamy Anandharaja, Namakkal vs. ITO Ward 1, Thiruchengode, Thirucengode

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

ITA 3450/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.3450/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13, vide order dated 17.01.2024. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there ... total income of Rs.1,10,89,540/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC on 05.10.2021. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided six opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed

M/S. Success Systems, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward -1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3446/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Respondent: 20.01.2026

Section 147Section 68

These appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘ld.CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16, vide both the orders dated 30.09.2025 against the assessment orders passed ... Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi, u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 26.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm, engaged in the business of whole sale & retail agent of mobile recharges

M/S. Success Systems, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Tirupur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3445/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Respondent: 20.01.2026

Section 147Section 68