← 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

Vijay Krishnaji Sawant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8991/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvijay Krishnaji Sawant Income Tax Officer-32(2)(1) Vijay Niwas, Ceaser Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Opp. Bombay Cambridge School, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Amboli, Andheri Railway Station S.O., Mumbai-400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aapps 7027 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Tiwari
Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

Saktijit Dey, Vice President: The present appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 17.11.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2012-13. 2. Basically, two issues arise for consideration in the present appeal. The first issue

Suraj Vijay Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 8317/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya & Mr. Dhaval SalotFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (SR AR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

pronouncement : 18/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant 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

Mahesh Vishindas Chandwani, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 29(2), Mumbai

In the result the Ground No

ITA 6777/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

order passed under section 143(3) of the Act date of order 14.03.2016. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. The NFAC erred in passing the order dated 29.08.2025 without considering the submissions and documents placed on record by the Appellant. Thus, the order passed by the NFAC ... same may be set aside. The Addition of Rs.41,00,000/- made by doubting the genuineness of unsecured loans is unjustified 2. The NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld.A.O. in making the addition of Rs.41,00,000/- being loan received from Shri DipakBhatija by doubting his creditworthiness

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Central Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5274/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 43C

filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)' for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC' for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' for short) 2018-19. 2. The assessee

M/S. Bank of American, N.A, Mumbai vs. The Jt DIT (I.T)3, Mumbai

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

The Dy DIT (I.T) 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of America N.A., Mumbai

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Karma Ecotech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Cirle 13(1), New Dlhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd. “1. That the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bangaloreand confirmed by the CIT(A)-NFAC is not only bad in law but also against the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is erred under the law while disposing ... condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB lies with CIT(A) exemption u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. 3. That the CIT(A)-NFAC is erred under the law and fact while not condoning the delay of only 18 days in filing the Form 10CCB as the assessee

Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7401/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Mamgai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

7401_DEL_2025_ Rajesh Kumar Mishra IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Depatment Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7273/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Tribunal, in the above referred case, are as under:- “20. So far as the grievance of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that filing of audit report in the prescribed form before completion of the assessment proceedings ... sufficient compliance under the provisions of the Act is concerned, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2014-15. We find the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Depatment Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7272/DEL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Tribunal, in the above referred case, are as under:- “20. So far as the grievance of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that filing of audit report in the prescribed form before completion of the assessment proceedings ... sufficient compliance under the provisions of the Act is concerned, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2014-15. We find the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Central Processing Center, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7271/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Tribunal, in the above referred case, are as under:- “20. So far as the grievance of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that filing of audit report in the prescribed form before completion of the assessment proceedings ... sufficient compliance under the provisions of the Act is concerned, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2014-15. We find the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court

Amunra Properties Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7268/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalamunra Properties Private Limited. Vs Income Tax Officer 302, Third Floor, E-561 A, G. R. Ward 2(3), C. R. Building, Plaza, Palam, Secdtor-7, Dwaraka, Delhi South West Delhi-110077 Pan: Aagca8743H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naveen M. Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, (‘Nfac’ For Short) Delhi Dated 05/09/2025 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed On 26/12/2016 By Computing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 86,23,800/-, By Making Certain Additions. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 26/12/2016, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 05/09/2025, Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Preferred The Present Appeal.

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, (‘NFAC’ for short) Delhi dated 05/09/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came

Mohd. Aslam, Delhi vs. ACIT, Range-63, Delhi

ITA 6588/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs Mohd. Aslam Acit, Range -63 Delhi 1493/94 Gali Chule Wali, Sadar Bazar Sadar, Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aaopa5946M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”], vide order dated 21.08.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 and arises out of the penalty order dated 23-11-2019 passed by the Assessing Officer under ... deed was executed through GPA to save the stamp duty. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the NFAC, who vide his order dated 21-08-2025 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

A K Enterprises, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6587/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

Pronouncement: 18/03/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short “NFAC”) Delhi vide order dated 26-08-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20 and arises out of the assessment order dated 02-02-2024 u/s 147r.w.s ... after making the addition of Rs.1,55,13,297/-. 4. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 26-08-2025 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 5. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee

Conscient Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 73(1), Delhi

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

ITA 6586/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal**

Section 194Section 194ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

Pronouncement: | 18/03/2026 | #### **ORDER** ## **PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:** This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short "NFAC") Delhi vide order dated 10-09-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 and arises out of the order dated 07-03-2023 PASSED u/s 201/201 ... Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC. Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. NFAC despite four opportunities granted the Ld. NFAC relying on the following decisions dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. - (i) Shree Balaji

Deep Chand Har Prasad, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 5289/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Amitabh Shukladeep Chand Har Prasad Vs Ito B-5, New Grain Market, Najafgarh, Ward-43(1) E-2 Block, New Delhi Pan: Aaifd1941M Civic Centre, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vijay Gupta, Adv Respondent By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

1 Deep Chand Har Prasad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Ild Millennium Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Civic Center, Delhi

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

ITA 4735/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Pronouncement: 18/03/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short “NFAC”) Delhi vide order dated 29-05-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 and arises out of the assessment order dated ... after making the addition of Rs.14,57,62,719/-. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 29-05-2025 dismissed the appeal. The Ld. NFAC observed in his order that post filing of appeal in January

Ambe Marble, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ambe Marble Ito Ward 36(1) Delhi New C/O B-50 Lgf South Vs Delhi Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi Pan No. Abbfa5852G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Pronouncement: 18/03/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short “NFAC”) Delhi vide order dated 25-06-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 and arises out of the assessment order dated ... Rs.47,50,000/- under section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 25-06-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. NFAC has observed in order as under

Deepanshu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 46(5), Delhi

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

ITA 4640/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial, Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant, Member

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144

Pronouncement: 18/03/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter vide order dated 30-10-2023 referred to as pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 short ‘the Act’. “Ld. NFAC)’ arising out the assessment ... No.4640/Del/2025 Deepansu vs. ITO Ward46(5) Delhi 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal as under: 1. That the Ld. NFAC has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,83,68,052/- made by the AO on account

Shri Parasram Commodities Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-23(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4630/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

KUMAR JM: The assessee preferred the appeal, challenging the order dated 27- 09-2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (in short Ld. NFAC) arising out from the assessment order dated 31-12-2019 passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2012-13 under the section 143(3)/147 ... account of the accommodation entry u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the NFAC who vide order dated 27-09-2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee because the assessee did not appeared before the Ld. NFAC. Being aggrieved