“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

Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2301/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmayy Pathak (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Babasaheb Sahebarav Jagdale, Masanarwadi Lingali Daund vs. Assessing Officer Ward 14(5), Aayakar Sadan Bodhi Tower Salisbury Park Gultekdi

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

ITA 2283/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: CIT(A) as per clause (b) Sec 246A of the IT Act, 1961. The Learned CIT(A) further erred to hold that Appellant should have filed Appeal to ITAT.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Thakur (Virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 146ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur vs. Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2265/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2265/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur A/P Umadi Tal Jath, Vs. Dist. Sangli-416413 Pan : Aaets2962D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs M.N. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Smt. Bhagchand Gogalu Paradeshi, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2237/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2237/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250

instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 28.07.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) passed u/s.250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 22.09.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B

Mahaveer Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Amalner vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2228/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER BENCH : These are 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.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17 both dated 21.03.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section ... liable to be quashed. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,62,705/- made by AO by disallowing the deduction u/s 80P in respect of interest income earned form deposits with

Mahaveer Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Amalner vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2227/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Tahir Eliyas Kacchi Menon, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Office, Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2164/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2163 & 2164/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17 are directed against the separate orders dated 22.07.2025 and 17.06.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Penalty Orders dated 15.03.2024 passed u/s.271

Tahir Eliyas Kacchi Memon, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2163/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2163 & 2164/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1894/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

post. Under these circumstances, the notices of hearing as well as the appellate order u/s 250 issued by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for A.Y.2015-16 on 14.06.2023 and for A.Y 2014-15 on 30.01.2025, on the above email id created by the staff of the ITP, went unnoticed. The said

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

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

ITA 1893/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Thuse Elektronics Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1890/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: 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.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: 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.2012-13 and A.Y.2013-14 dated 23.09.2025 and 09.06.2025 respectively emanating from the separate Assessment

Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

such the appellant contends that, the present re- assessment proceedings are bad in law and ought to be quashed. 4. Learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and in rejecting appellant's appeal, on account of the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal memo. Learned AO ought ... Notification issued under section 151A of ITA, 1961, notice u/s 148 of ITA, 1961 ought to have been issued by National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC) and not by JAO and the same has also been upheld in the recent pronouncement in case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s ACIT (Bombay

Jeevandhara Coop Credit Soc Ltd, Pune vs. Pne W- 56 (2), Pune

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

ITA 1660/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade

Section 143(3)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Karwar Nagari Sahakari Patsansta Maryadit, Pune vs. Pne -W- 59(1), Pune

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

ITA 1658/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Asha Shivajirao Bhise, Latur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2110/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Laxmikant Nandkishor Toshniwal, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 1853/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1853/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Laxmikant Nandkishor Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Latur. Toshniwal, Nandkishor Toshniwal, Deva Niwas, Bhagya Nagar, Nandi Stop, Latur- 413512. Pan : Agppt1081M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 : Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Non-Acceptance Of Condonation Of Delay 1.1 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) ["The Ld. Cit(A)] Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Without Properly Considering The Cause For Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderbad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 2272/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 14/03/2022. The assessee company has assailed

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 2271/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Mahesh Kumar Bhati, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1860/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: transfer making it a long term capital asset whereas the A.O. has treated the same as short term capital asset. 4. The assessment made by learned A.O. and upheld by the CIT(A) is incorrect as while computing capital gains indexed cost of acquisition has not been considered leading to excess assessment. 7. For these and other ground which may be raised during OR before the

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.10.2025, arising out of order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax 2 Mahesh Kumar Bhati Act, 1961 (for short

Sujatha Sunkara by L/R Ganga Rao Sunkara, Nizamabad vs. ITO, Ward- 3, Nizamabad

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

ITA 1844/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1844/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Ganga Rao Sunkara L/R Of Sujatha The Income Tax Officer, Sunkara, Nizamabad. Vs. Ward-3, Pin – 503 202 Nizamabad. Pan Acxpv6532H Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri H Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri H Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 115B

PRESIDENT : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 07.10.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2 ITA.No.1844/Hyd./2025 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. “Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred