“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

Vijay Dattatray Mahajan Through Son & Legal Heir Subodh Vijay Mahajan, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 6755/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi SolaniFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge (SR. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

Date of pronouncement : 13/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench : A bunch of appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’), for Assessment year

Vijay Dattatray Mahajan Through Son and Legal Heir Subodh Vijay Mahajan, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 6754/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi SolaniFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge (SR. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

Vijay Dattatray Mahajan Through Son and Legal Heir Subodh Vijay Mahajan, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 6753/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi SolaniFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge (SR. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

Sameer Ramdas Pingale, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6752/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khopdia ()

Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Pronouncement 13.02.2026 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 26/08/2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter the “Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal:- “1) Ground No. 1: Violation of Natural Justice On facts and circumstances

Prakash Devidas, Mumbai vs. ACIT -32(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6548/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Devidas, Asst. Commissioner Of Flat No. 201, F Wing, Income Tax-32(2), Octacrest C.H.S., Vs. Mumbai. Lokhandwala Township, Akurli Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. Pan : Aeupd0326E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Appeared) A/W. Ms. Sneha More For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja PawarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 16-09-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1) That ... facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the disallowance of exemption 2 claimed u/s. 54 of the Act on sale of residential flat at Rs. 62,31,962/- for A.Y. 2014-15. 2) That on the facts

Dattatray Vithoba Sawant, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6081/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10(14)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 3Section 80CSection 80G

ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order dated 28/07/2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter the “Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2017-18, on the following grounds of appeal:- “The appellant prefers an appeal against an appeal order passed

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar

Section 4Section 43C

Bajaj International Commissioner of Income- Reality Private Limited, tax (Appeals), National Vs. 106-107, Bajaj Bhawan, Faceless Appeal Centre 226, Nariman Point, (NFAC) DCIT – 1(2)1, Mumbai. Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400020. PAN NO. AAECB 3060 C Appellant Respondent : Shri Kirit Kamdar Assessee by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Bajaj International Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5319/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar

Section 4Section 43C

Mansukhlal Mohanlal Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5049/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokars.A. No. 173/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mansukhlal Mohanlal Ito Ward-41(2)(3), Mehta Huf Kautilya Bhavan, B-102, Krishakunj, S. N. Vs. Bandra Kurla Road, Mulund West, Complex, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 080 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaghm5909Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Kalpana Gandhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Santush Pandurang Mane, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4528/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhatFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Pravinchandra B Dedhia, Mumbai

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

ITA 3775/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Pravinchandra B Dedhia, Ward-41(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 853, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. A Wing, Panvai Nagar, Bkc, Nalasopara (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400104. Pan : Aaqpd3140A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69C

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 14-03-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment

Nitin Chaturbhug Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2569/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeals are preferred by the assessee challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”, dated 12.02.2025 and 18/02/2025 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively, which in turn arises

Nitin Chaturbhug Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2568/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 2102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit – 14(1)(1), Mumbai M/S. Kukreja Builders Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, 4 & 5Th Floor, Sai Mumbai - 400020 Commercial Building, Bks Vs. Devshi Marg., Govandi (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400088 Pan: Aacck5040M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee During The A.Y. Under Consideration Had Declared Its Total Income As Rs. 2,20,00,580/- By Filing Its Return Of Income, Which Was Initially Processed Under Section 143 Of The Act. 2 M/S. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (SR. D.R.)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 250Section 68

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.01.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Shweta Aggarwal, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

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

ITA 8455/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalshweta Aggarwal (Proprietor) Income Tax Officer, 516/34, Rakesh Nagar, Ward-1, Rohtak. Janta Colony, Vs. S.O., Rohtak-124001. Haryana. Pan-Angpa4133R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Akhilesh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 250

AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short], in Appeal No. NFAC/2018/19/10463609 dated 13.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short

Shanti Devi, Sambhal vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6468/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsmt. Shanti Devi, Income Tax Officer, W/O Shri Bablu, Ward-1(5), R/O Vill. Dariyapur Rajdev, Vs. Sambhal- 244242, P. O. Chakauni, Uttar Pradesh. Sambhal- 244242, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Hvapd2318L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Akhilesh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short], In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10397076 Dated 30.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) For Asst. Year 2019-20. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. On The Other Hand, The Ld. Sr. Dr Supports The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Submits That Assessee Has Not Made Compliance To The Statutory Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act Before The Ao, Therefore, He Is Liable To Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act. He Thus Prayed For The Confirmation Of The Penalty Levied U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act. Shanti Devi Vs. Ito

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short], in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10397076 dated 30.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short

Krishna Strategic Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 6464/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 250

MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short], in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-5/10216/2019-20 dated 13.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income

Mahaveera Rice World (Now Known As Mahavira Rice World LLP), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 46(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6419/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

6419_DEL_2025_Mahaveera Rice World IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR

Park View Automotives Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 19(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13 Park View Automotives P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, S-606, School Block, Ward 19(3), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecp3499H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 22.07.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment

Income Tax Officer, C R Building vs. Aggarwal Alloy Steels Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5074/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, Vs. Aggarwal Alloy Steels Room No. 199F, Pvt Ltd., 1St Floor, C.R. Building, 204, 2Nd Floor, Abhinash I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 2 Mansio, Main Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 (Pan: Aadca6884C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 149

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S