“ NFAC ”

127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court

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

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

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.

128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC

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.

142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC

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.

145 Taxmann.com 235 · 2022 · ITAT

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

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.

152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT

366 ITR 18 · 2014 · High Court

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

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC

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.

157 Taxmann.com 749 · 2023 · Reported

ITA 1196/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

Sweetyben Ankitkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], dated 31.10.2023 for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18 in the proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. There

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1054/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु" ( अपील ) 4. / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. "वभागीय "ितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, "या"पत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1053/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1052/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maraydit, Shirwal, Khandala, Satara, Maharashtra vs. Assessing Officer Ward 4 Satara, Aaykar Bhawan, Manjunath Manor, Pawai Naka, Satara

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

ITA 2914/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2914/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Rajkumar Doshi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 12.11.2025 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 Assessment Order dated 12.03.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143 ... careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. 7. Turning to the facts of the present case, the impugned order by the NFAC was passed on 12.03.2021. The assessee filed the appeal on 25.11.2024. I note that the delay of 30 months has occurred in filing of the appeal

Swastivishwa Behavioral and Social Sciences Institute Foundation, Pune vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 2797/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2797/Pun/2025

For Respondent: Appellant by None

Section 12A(1)(ac)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 18.09.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) denying the application for grant of regular registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. When

Vatsalabai Karbhari Deore, Kalwan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 2274/PUN/2025[2011 - 12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Sailee Dhole

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 68

instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the order dated 15.07.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment order dated 26.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Assessee has raised following grounds

Banganga Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Ojhar (Mig), Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Nashik.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1788 & 1789/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & 2018-19 Banganga Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Ravsaheb, Bhagava, Nashik Chowk, Ojhar Niphad, Ozar Mig, Nashik – 422206. Pan: Aaajb0550G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjeev Muttha – Virtual Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : 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 A.Y.2022-23 Dated 22.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2024 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

pronouncement 20/01/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER BENCH : 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 A.Y.2022-23 dated 22.05.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order dated 18.03.2024 under section 143(3) r.w.s

Banganga Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Mariyadit Ojhar (Mig), Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Suresh Vitthalrao Barge, Beed vs. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the

ITA 1398/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar Surwase, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in not quashing the entire / 2 ITA.No.1398/PUN./2025 (Suresh Vitthalrao Barge) whole re assessment proceedings which was completed without providing the reasons for reopening ... prays for just, fair and (₹ 40,73,160/-) appropriate relief. 2. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in concluding that appellant had not asked for the reasons for reopening of an assessment by ignoring the evidence produced by the appellant during

Skyline Developers, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward4(50, Pune

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

ITA 709/PUN/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2006-07 is directed against the order dated 23.03.2023 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of assessment Order dated 06.02.2014 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Registry has pointed out that

Agricultural Market Committee, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 1202/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

ITA 1201/HYD/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Agricultural Market Committee (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 03.07.2024 for the A.Ys. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. As identical issues are involved

Agricutural Market Committee, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

ITA 1200/HYD/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Agricultural Market Committee, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

ITA 1199/HYD/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Agricultural Market Committee, Nizamabad vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia