← 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

Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 2194/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2194 & 2195/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh V Dcit, Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, S. Circle-5, Pune. Katraj Dairy, Pune Satara Road, Katraj, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaaap0836A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.R.Bhagwat Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 19.12.2019 & 19.01.2021 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided In A

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

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee are against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 both dated 30.07.2025 emanating from the separate assessment orders under section ... treat appeal in ITA No.2194/PUN/2025 as lead case. The Assessee for A.Y.2017-18 has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1] The learned CIT A NFAC erred in sustaining the rejection of the assessee society's claim for deduction under section 80 P(2)(d) in respect of interest and dividend

Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit, Pimpalgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 1598/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee are against the common order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2017-18 and 2018-19, both dated 27.11.2024 emanating from separate Assessment Order u/s.143

Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit, Pimapalgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 1596/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee are against the common order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2017-18 and 2018-19, both dated 27.11.2024 emanating from separate Assessment Order u/s.143

West Bengal Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2298/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 West Bengal Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd….……….……Appellant Lb-2, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kol – 700106.. [Pan: Aaaaw0454H] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata.…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri I. Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.10.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 286 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay, Which Is Self-Explanatory. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find That The Delay Was Occurred Due To Unusual Circumstances Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 80P

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.10.2024 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year

Tonmoy Sadhukhan, Bhangar vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2291/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Tonmoy Sadhukhan…………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ghatakpukur, Gobindapur Bhangar, South 24 Parganas 743502, Wb – 743502. [Pan: Cbzps8992R] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. K. Rai, Adv, H. Mukhopadhaya & Trideep Nayak, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 528 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay, Which Is Self-Explanatory. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find That The Delay Was Occurred Due To Unusual Circumstances Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2024 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year

Satya Subhas Ghoshal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 28(2) Presently 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1988/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Satya Subhas Ghoshal………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 49/1, Karl Marx Sarani, Kol – 700023. [Pan: Aenpg8374C] Vs. Ito, Ward-28(2), Presently Ward-30(1), Kolkata……….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.03.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income Was Filed Showing Total Income Of Rs.3,39,860/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. It Was Also Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.1,03,86,425/-In Saving Bank Account In Indusind Bank (Rs. 30,56,625/-) & Icici Bank (Rs. 73,29,800/-). As There No Explanation & No Requisite Documents Were Provided By The Assessee To Verify The Source Of Such Cash Deposits, The Assessing Officer Added The Entire Sum Of Rs. 1,03,86,425/- U/S 68 Of The Act. Satya Subhas Ghoshal 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Appeal Has Been Dismissed By Holding That The Assessee Failed To File Any Credible Evidence In Support Of The Claim.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.03.2024 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year

Pandian Hari, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2628/CHNY/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2628/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Pandian Hari, 75/151 I Om Sri Sairam Plaza, Thambuchetty Street, Parrys, Chennai - 600 001. Pan: Acfph 7870Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 05.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2023-24. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05.08.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Year