← 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

Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1604/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Dy. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Circle-1, Ground Floor, Bhavnagar – 364 001 Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 147Section 234ASection 270ASection 37

MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “the CIT(A)”] dated 12/02/2025 passed for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has taken the following ... Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. ""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)/(NFAC), Delhi 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //// सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt

Lalitha Kuchibhatla, Chittoor vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 1543/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1543/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Lalitha Kuchibhatla Vs. Income Tax Officer Chittoor Ward 1(1) Pan:Axdpk2304D Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Lalitha Kuchibhatla (“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 26.08.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

Lalitha Kuchibhatla (“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 26.08.2025 for the A.Y 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1539/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("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)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151A(1)Section 153

Sukesini Kumili ("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)”) for the A.Ys 2015-16 and 2016-17, all dated 16.07.2025. Since inter-related issues are involved in all these four appeals

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1538/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Ys Nos. 1536 To 1539/ Sukesini Kumili, Income Tax Officer 2015-16 & Hyd/2025 Hyderabad Ward 15(1),Hyderabad 2016-17 Pan:Ckmpk5466J िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili (“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)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

Sukesini Kumili (“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)”) for the A.Ys 2015-16 and 2016-17, all dated 16.07.2025. Since inter-related issues are involved in all these four appeals

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1537/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Ys Nos. 1536 To 1539/ Sukesini Kumili, Income Tax Officer 2015-16 & Hyd/2025 Hyderabad Ward 15(1),Hyderabad 2016-17 Pan:Ckmpk5466J िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili (“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)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

Sukesini Kumili (“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)”) for the A.Ys 2015-16 and 2016-17, all dated 16.07.2025. Since inter-related issues are involved in all these four appeals

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1536/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Ys Nos. 1536 To 1539/ Sukesini Kumili, Income Tax Officer 2015-16 & Hyd/2025 Hyderabad Ward 15(1),Hyderabad 2016-17 Pan:Ckmpk5466J िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili (“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)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

Sukesini Kumili (“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)”) for the A.Ys 2015-16 and 2016-17, all dated 16.07.2025. Since inter-related issues are involved in all these four appeals