← 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

Veenus Jewellars, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1373/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR

Veenus Jewellars (“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 31.12.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. ITA No.1373/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay

Nirmala Alla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the conditions stated above

ITA 1067/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr.DR
Section 144

Nirmala Alla (“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 01.04.2025 for the A.Y. 2007-08. ITA No.1067/Hyd/2025 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 3. The brief

Sumitra Devi Bihani, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Siliguri

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

ITA 2588/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sumitra Devi Bihani…..………...………..............................……….……Appellant C/O Rexine King, Tera Hotel Building, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001. [Pan: Adjpb3235A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Siliguri...………….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajeev Mukherjee, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborty, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16 ,2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 26.10.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For The Ay 2017-18. 2 After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Find That The Assessing Officer Framed The Assessment U/S 144 By Making An Addition U/S 69A Of Rs.84,74,102/- During Demonetization Period. In The Appellate Proceedings, The Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Passing An Ex Parte Order On Account Of Non-Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Different Dates. We Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal By Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Without Discussing & Deciding The Issues On Merits When The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Sumitra Devi Bihani Opportunities Provided By The Ld. Cit(A). Under The Circumstances, In Our View, The Interest Of Justice Would Be Well-Served If The Appeal Is Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) With A Direction To Decide The Same On Merits After Affording Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. Accordingly, We Set Aside The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Issue To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

order : January 16 ,2026 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred

Harihar Dutt Memorial Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1824/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1824/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-2023) Harihar Dutt Memorial Trust, Vs Ito Ward-1(4), Exemption, 26/5B, Jhil Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata Kolkata,West Bengal-700031 Pan No. :Aaath 4327 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.06.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ao Has Applied Provision Of Section 115Jd On The Ground That The Assessee’S Provisions Registration U/.S12A Of The Act Has Been Cancelled. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Been Granted Provisional Registration From The Assessment Year 2021-2022 To 2022-2023. Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Page 15 Of The Paper Book Which Is The Order Of Provisional Registration & The Same Reads As Follows :-

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR
Section 115J

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.06.2025, passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2022-2023. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the AO has applied provision of Section 115JD on the ground

Elite Packaging, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7240/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen B. Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 148Section 250Section 41(1)

pronouncement : 16/01/2026 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, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year

Mr Dhananjay Mahadeo Sonsurkar, Mumbai vs. ITO/CIT (A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6044/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Prashant Ghumare,(virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and as otherwise also

Sudheer Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 23(3)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 5263/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan & Mr. RaviFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises from the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”], confirming the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income ... ACIT (ITA No. 2427/Mum/2023) • Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3429/Mum/2019) • Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO [100 taxmann.com 172] • Aadesh Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC (ITA No. 4035/Mum/2023) • Crosseas Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 3417/Mum/2023) • Shri Sachin Chirania vs. ITO (ITA No. 4508/Mum/2023 – AY 2011-12) • Shri

Chandi Ram Sahajwani Through Dinesh Kumar Legal Heir, Panipat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 849/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54F

Date of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 19.12.2024 pertaining to A.Y 2012-13. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: 1. That the Honorable Commissioner of Income

M.S. Builders, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Moradabad

ITA 616/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250

present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.12.2024 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10041203 assessed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] arising out of the assessment order dated

Onus Plantations and Agro Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5004/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 127(2)(a)Section 127(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 68Section 69C

ITA No.5004/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shalini Chhabra, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Faridabad

ITA 4858/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Naveen Chandrashalini Chhabra Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3) 5E-9, Banglow Plot Faridabad Railway, 1167-I, Sector- 21-D, Faridabad Nit, Haryana 121001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afgpc7939D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.02.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) P a g e | 2 ShaliniChhabra(AY: 2018-19) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073446259 ... legal ground No. 4 & 5 which are reproduced below for convenience: “4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the reassessment order passed by the AO despite the fact that the show-cause notice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4716/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

1 DCIT Vs. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4714/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

1 DCIT Vs. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Jhandewalan vs. Sterling Agro Industries Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-

ITA 4713/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80Section 80I

1 DCIT Vs. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE

Satish Kumar Mailik, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 52(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4307/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalsatish Kumar Malik, Income Tax Officer, 2/31, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Ward-52(3), New Delhi-110002. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Adrpm7097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.M. Mehta, Ca & Shri J.P. Chawla, Ca Department By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.05.2025 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-18/10299/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Goods. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 02.11.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,19,530/- & The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Complete Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposit During The Demonetization”. Thereafter, Notice U/S 143(2) Satish Kumar Malik Vs. Ito Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time, In Response To Which Assessee Filed Written Submissions. After Considering The Submissions Filed By The Assessee The Ao Was Of The Opinion That Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.44,44,750/- In Bank During Demonetization Period In Sbn Source Of Which Was Not Explained And, Therefore, Made The Addition Of The Said Cash As Unexplained Credits U/S 68 Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act & Charge Tax At The Higher Rate.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

AGARWAL, AM: The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 28.05.2025 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-18/10299/2019-20 arising out of the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

Atul Agarwal, New Dev Puri, Bhatipura, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3756/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Animesh Vashisth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT- DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 44A

Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 26.09.2024 pertaining to A.Y 2018-19. 2. The grievances of the assessee read as under: “1. The Learned Assessing officer has erred

Gandaram and Sons Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Ac Circle 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3754/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Karnik Rajat, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra , Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 68

Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 26.05.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2017-18. [A.Y 2017-18] Gandadram & Sons Jewellers vs ACIT 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee arising

Ramvir Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward- 3(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2857/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 270ASection 548Section 54B

present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.04.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10328465 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated ... taking following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming following action of the Assessment unit- A. determining taxable income at Rs.6,81,39,950/- against the correct returned income Rs.27

Tsi Yatra Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1363/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

Date of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2026 PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 03.01.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised 6 grounds of appeal. Vide Ground Nos. 1 to 4 the assessee

Late Shri Duleechanda Through Legal Representative Shri Rajendra Chaudhary, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1353/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250

Date of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2026 PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 04.12.2024 pertaining to A.Y 2010-11. 2. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. Having perused