← 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

Deepak Suresh Shandilya, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Vapi, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1125/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1124 & 1125/Srt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13) बनाम/ Deepak Suresh Shandilya Income Tax Officer Village – Lohani(53) Ward-2, Vapi Vs. Bhiwani, Bhiwani, Haryana -127021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bweps8576C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Airik Singla, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2026 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To & Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee For Different Assessment Years, (A.Y.) 2010-11 & 2012- 13 & Are Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Both Dated 05.12.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) .

For Appellant: Ms. Airik Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 250

against separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) both dated 05.12.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) . 2. At the time

Deepak Suresh Shandilya, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1124/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1124 & 1125/Srt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13) बनाम/ Deepak Suresh Shandilya Income Tax Officer Village – Lohani(53) Ward-2, Vapi Vs. Bhiwani, Bhiwani, Haryana -127021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bweps8576C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Airik Singla, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2026 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To & Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee For Different Assessment Years, (A.Y.) 2010-11 & 2012- 13 & Are Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Both Dated 05.12.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) .

For Appellant: Ms. Airik Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 250

against separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) both dated 05.12.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) . 2. At the time

Coromandel International Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“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 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

Coromandel International Limited (“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 24/02/2025 for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. DCIT 2. The assessee

Allrui Srinivas Raju, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1923/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1923/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Allrui Srinivas Raju, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-12(1), Pan: Ahepr6968H Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri K C Devdas, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 12/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Allrui Srinivas Raju, (“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 17/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. Allrui Srinivas Raju Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Rounds Of Appeal:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2

Shri Allrui Srinivas Raju, (“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 17/10/2025 for the A.Y.2016-17. Allrui Srinivas Raju vs. DCIT 2. The assessee has raised the following rounds of appeal: “Under ... facts and circumstances of the case 1. The Appellant order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- (NFAC), New Delhi ['the Ld. CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2016-2017, under section 147, read with section 144 and 144B of Income Tax Act 1961, is wrong on facts

Somasekar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 4136/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.4135 & 4136/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Somasekar, The Income Tax Officer, No.3, Ambedkar Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward-7(3), Old Thirumangalam, Chennai. Anna Nagar West Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Bxdps-8182-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 69A

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 2018-19 and 2019-20, vide both the orders dated 15.10.2025 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 09.02.2023 and 03.01.2024 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in poultry trading business under the name of M/s. Sri Sai Broilers

Somasekar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 4135/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.4135 & 4136/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Somasekar, The Income Tax Officer, No.3, Ambedkar Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward-7(3), Old Thirumangalam, Chennai. Anna Nagar West Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Bxdps-8182-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 69A

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 2018-19 and 2019-20, vide both the orders dated 15.10.2025 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 09.02.2023 and 03.01.2024 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in poultry trading business under the name of M/s. Sri Sai Broilers

Mayuri Electronics Private Limited, Namakkal vs. DCIT Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 4051/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.4051/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mayuri Electronics Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 171/1, Co-Operative Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Mohanur Road, Circle-1, Namakkal – 637 001. Erode. [Pan: Aaicm-3674-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 221Section 250Section 68

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 2014-15, vide the order dated 26.06.2023 against the assessment order passed by the AO, Circle ... u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2016. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the AO before the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 20.01.2017. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to absence of written submission and documentary evidence in support