← 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

Oracle Granito Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2432/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2432/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Oracle Granito Limited The Dcit, Circle-3(1)(1) बनाम/ 206, Dev Arc, 2Nd Floor Ambawadi V/S. Nr. Fun Republic Ahmedabad- 38015 Opp. Big Bazar S.G. Highway Road Ahmedabad- 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaco 6238 P (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/10/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Of Oracle Granito Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 250

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 10/10/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 1. #&थ% / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi. 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Jayshree Narendra Amin, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2124/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2124/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jayshree Narendra Amin The Ito बनाम/ 20, Kaushalya Bungalows Ward-1(1)(1) V/S. Opp. Karnavati Club Ahmedabad – 380 014 Ramdevnagar, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 012 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abcpa 2934 N (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of office of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), ADDL/JCIT(A)-6, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 11/09/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 2. "%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC),ADDL/JCIT(A)-6, Mumbai 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स%ािपत

Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad vs. Jay Malhar Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 719/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.719/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Jay Malhar Nagari Sahkari Aurangabad. Patsanstha Maryadit, Plot No.2, N-2, J Sector, Aurangabad – 431001. Pan: Aabtj2678L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.18/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jay Malhar Nagari Sahkari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad. Plot No.2, N-2, J Sector, Aurangabad – 431001. Pan: Aabtj2678L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S K Sethi (Through Virtual) Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 80P(2)(a)

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: In this case, Revenue has filed an appeal against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under ITA No.719/PUN/2025 [D] & C.O.No.18/PUN/2025 [A] section 250 of the Act, for A.Y.2018-19 dated 23.01.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order under section

Bhagyeshree Chandrashekar Sakle, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Pune

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

ITA 2337/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2337/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2020-21 Bhagyeshree Chandrashekar V The Income Tax Officer, Sakle, S Ward-9(3), Pune. Shop No.511, Cantonment Complex, Dehuroad, Ral Haveli, Pune – 412101. Pan: Cqyps6464G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 12.09.2025 For A.Y.2020-21 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17.01.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.09.2025 for A.Y.2020-21 emanating from the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s

Mr. Harivijay Pralhad Joshi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune, Swargate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2297/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2297/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Harivijay Prahlad Joshi, V The Income Tax 3 & 4, Megh Terrace 55 S Officer, Rambaug, Colony, Behind Ward-3(3), Pune. Chaitanya Health Club, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aappj9257M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar – (Virtual) On Rotation Duty Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ 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.2018-19 Dated 14.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

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.2018-19 dated 14.11.2024 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under ITA No.2297/PUN/2025 ... proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the illegal order passed by the Ld. NaFAC since the Notice u/s 148 dated 13-04-2022 was issued by Jurisdictional

Carcanet Infra Projects Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward1(2), Pune

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2241/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 Carcanet Infra Projects Private V The Income Tax Officer, Limited, S Ward-1(2), Pune. Office No.460, Marvel Vista, Lulla Nagar Chowk, Sahaney Sujan Park, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaecc5337M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajeev Thakkar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 04.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.03.2019. Ita No.2241/Pun/2025 [A] Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee As Follows : “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Dated 0-4Th July, 2025, Ignoring The Fact That An Earlier Order Under Section 250 Dated 23Rd November, 2021 Had Already Been Passed Allowing Withdrawal Of The Appeal Consequent To The Assessee Having Opted For The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Justification For Raising Additional Grounds 1) The Grounds Had Remained To Be Specifically Raised While Filing The Appeal. 2) The Grounds Raised Are Legal, Factual & Goes To The Root Of The Matter.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records.

Section 143(3)Section 250

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15 dated 04.07.2025 emanating from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

Sapana Dharmendra Shah, Malegaon vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2217/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2217/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sapana Dharmendra Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyar Bhavan, Ramsetu, Ward – 1, Malegaon Opp. Gayatri Mangal Karyala, Vs. Malegaon, Nashik-423203 Pan : Belps3009B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information Flagged By The Cbdt Through Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms Category”, It Was Found That During The Relevant Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,91,03,000/- In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. In The Name Of M/S Shree Kakaji Masale & Foods. Further, There Is Also Tds Made To The Tune Of Rs.1,524/- U/S 194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On „Interest Other Than „Interest On Securities‟ Against A Total Credit Of Rs.15,240/- By The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd., Which Has Not Been Disclosed To The Department. Since, The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 05.04.2022 Which Was Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act As Well As Show Cause Notice Were Issued, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Certain

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

upon on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We direct and order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are therefore allowed

Kishor Jagannath Satav, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(4), Pune

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

ITA 2196/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2196/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kishor Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Etaps5826K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 176 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Live Law (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the order passed under section 250 by CITIA) NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal without sending physical hearing notices to appellant is illegal, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice. The appellant prays ... No.2196/PUN/2025, AY 2014-15 2. On facts and circumstances of case and in laws, the order passed under section 250 by CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal on ground of non-cooperation by appellant is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principal of natural justice. The appellant prays