← 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

Ketan Harilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax - 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 6689/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Shri Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter called, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2014-15, date of order 22/08/2025

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6510/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 30Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6509/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 30Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6507/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6506/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 4Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deepak Kakubhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6505/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Sukir Ladaku Naik, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5912/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Hybridhearing) Sukir Ladaku Naik, Ito, 28(3)(1), Mumbai Sanjay Niwas, Near Fish Market Vs It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Bonkode, Navi Mumbai Building, Navi Mumbai

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shah Petroleum Products, Chembur vs. ACIT, Circle 27(3), Mumbai, Vashi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4905/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2012-13 Shah Petroleum Products, Acit, Circle 27(3), Bpcl Petrol Pump, Opp. Room No. 423, 4Th Floor, Shoppers Stop, Ghatkopar Vs. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Mahul Road, Chembur, Mumbai, Station Commercial Mumbai – 400089. Complex, Vashi, Pan – Aabfs2738Q Navi Mumbai – 400703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Ao Had Received The Information Dated 19.03.2019 From The Ddit (Inv.) Unit – 5(4), Mumbai To The Effect That In A Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprise, Statement Of Mr. Nilesh Bharani, Being Partner Of Such Enterprises Recorded Under Section 132 (4) Of The Act, Wherefrom Undisclosed Activity Of Money 2 Shah Petroleum Products

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR. D.R
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... case of Parag Motilal Savla vs. ITO (Ward) - 27 (2) (5) (ITA No. 5220/M2023) decided on 29.04.2024 and Parag Motilal Savla vs. NFAC (Delhi) (ITA No. 4221/M/2023) decided on 06.01.2025 wherein by considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mayur

M/S. Krian Cinema Banquests Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 4860/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagdish

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Shri Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter called, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 07/07/2025

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4259/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‘“F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Murtuza Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 4080/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 48Section 49Section 50CSection 54

Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short “Id. CIT(A)”] dated 28.12.2024 for the AY 2015-16, arises from the assessment order passed under section 147 r. w. s. 144B

Nilesh Premjibhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3851/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, ()

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

impugned order dated 31.03.2025, passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, ('NFAC'), for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 33(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on merits

ITA 3639/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito Ward-32(2)(1) Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt Kautilya Bhavan, I-1434, Govardhan Nagar Bandra Kurla Bldg. No. 4, Opp. Poinsur Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Gymkhana, Kandivali Mumbai-400 051 (West), Mumbai-400 067 Pan/Gir No. Aiypb4411G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan L. Vajani, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2026

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for 2 Jigna ... Objection against confirming an invalid reassessment. (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – NFAC, hereinafter 5 Jigna Ashutosh Bhatt referred to as the “CIT (A)”, has erred in confirming the validity of the reassessment in her case without appreciating

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the

ITA 2906/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 132

ITA No. 2906/Mum/2025 and others Subhkaran and Sons AYs: 2013-14 to 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

ITO-26(2)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan Bkc vs. Svadeshi Enterprises (Mumbai), Fort, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5865/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay & Nishil Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT-(CC)-7(3), Mumbai vs. Jay Jagannath Steel and Power Limited, Odisha

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 5600/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Neptune Fincot Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeded ground no

ITA 3946/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Naval Seth L/H Late Sh. Ghansham Dass Seth, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6210/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

above captioned appeal is preferred before the Tribunal against the order dated 13.02.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10263347 ... income tax proceedings and, not having requisite proficiency technologically could not keep track of the notices as well as the orders issued by the NFAC. Subsequently, while filing the return of income, the assessee’s Chartered Accountant noticed from the Income Tax Portal that the Appellate Tribunal had been passed

Gagan Bharti Educational Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Exemption 1(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2275/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 13(7)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

above captioned appeal is preferred before the Tribunal against the order dated 12.03.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10038487 for A.Y. 2018- 19. 2. The Assessee ... order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre 1 | P a g e Gagan Bharti Educational Society Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "NFAC") under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ("the Act") for the A.Y. 2018-19 dated 12.02.2025 is illegal, bad in law, and in contravention

Ramesh Chand Jaiswal, Azamgarh vs. ITO 3(2), Azamgarh

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

ITA 94/VNS/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147r

assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 17/11/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/106412880(1) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi. 2. In this case, assessment order dated 17.09.2021was passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147r.w.s. 144 of the Income