“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deepak Ghanshamdas Takhtani, Khar vs. Income Tax Ward Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed, and the impugned reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed

ITA 5382/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Adverting To The Merits Of The Addition, We Deem It Appropriate, As A Matter Of Judicial Propriety & Settled Legal Discipline, To First Examine The Jurisdictional Challenge Raised By The Assessee, Since If The Assumption Of Jurisdiction Itself Is Found To Be Infirm, The Entire Superstructure Of The Reassessment Would Necessarily Collapse.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

under law. 8. This precise issue now stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Chitra Supekar vs. NFAC in Writ Petition No. 15580 of 2022. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court, which have a direct and binding bearing

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. R Mehta & Co, Mumbai

ITA 5301/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 690

captioned appeal is filed by the revenue, directed against the order of Commissioner of income tax appeals (for short “ld. CIT(A)”), NFAC, New Delhi dated 18.06.2025, for the assessment year (AY) 2012 – 13, which in turn arises from the assessment order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Income Tax Officer

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

filing the appeal for the facts and circumstances as set out herein: 1. The Applicant had filed an appeal to the ld. Addl/Jt.CIT, NFAC against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act challenging not only the validity of assessment but also on merits in respect of assessing the long ... practice to check the e-proceeding A/c. 3. The Applicant through post received a letter dt.04.08.2025 of the Verification Unit, NFAC intimating that the Applicant has not responded to the show cause notice issued by the Penalty Unit u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Applicant then immediately

Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Mulund vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, 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. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R

Section 250

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.08.2024, 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

Shri Sanjay Haresh Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

ITA 4751/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, 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. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin KhinchiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.07.2025, 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

Rohit Sukhram Kandhari, Mumbai vs. DCIT, -1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 4505/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari, National Faceless Appeal Plot No. 61, Brillanto House, Centre (Cit(A)/Dcit -1 Vs. Road No.13, Midc, Andheri (E), (2) (1), Mumbai – 400093. Aayakar Bhavan, Pan – Aadpk 3631 Q Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rituraj Gurjar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, 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. 2021-22. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Earned Rental Income Of Rs. 6,40,099/-, However, While Preparing & Filing The Itr, Due To Glitch In Software & Inadvertently Mentioned The Said Income Of 6,40,099/- In Itr Twice, Mentioning Single Property In Two Columns. Whereas It Is A Fact That The Assessee Has Earned The Rental Income Of Rs. 6,40,009/- Only. However, The Cpc, Processed The Return Filed By The Assessee On Dated 13.03.2022, Vide Intimation Dated 22.04.2022, Whereby The Income From House Property Has Been 2 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari

For Appellant: Shri Rituraj Gurjar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 143Section 154Section 250

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025, 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

Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajlal Shah ), Mumbai vs. ACIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4409/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

captioned appeal is filed by the assessee, directed against the order of Commissioner of income tax appeals (for short “ld. CIT(A)”), NFAC, New Delhi dated 09.01.2025, for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises from the assessment order dated 30.05.2023, passed by Assistant Rekha Kishore Shah ... raised by the revenue in the present appeal reads as under: “Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, this appeal petition is submitted on the following grounds which it is prayed may be considered independently and without prejudice to one another

Rajesh M Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4220/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 144

Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee, against the order of Commissioner of income tax appeals (for short “ld. CIT(A)”), NFAC, New Delhi dated 11.02.2025, for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises from the assessment order dated 07.12.2018, passed by Income ... grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal reads as under: “GOA No.1 Opportunity of Hearing :  The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC not given proper opportunity of hearing before dismissing the said appeal.  The said appeal was filed on 05/02/2019 vide Form 35 bearing acknowledgment

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3955/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

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

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3954/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

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

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3953/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

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

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3952/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

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

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3951/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

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

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3950/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

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

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3862/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 2944/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148A

which was signed prior to final negotiations of scope work and financial terms. (which was wrongly interpreted by the learned NFAC and considering the incorrect date)” 5.12 It is, thus, apparent that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly assumed both the agreements to be same. The Assessing Officer has also mistakenly

DCIT-CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Gopal Narayandas Kela, Akola

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2897/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawaldcit-Cc-6(1), Mumbai Vs. Gopal Narayandas Kela Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 40 Ramanath Sadan, Kaufilya Bhawan, Bkc, Ravi Nagar Goenka Mumbai-400051 Layout, Akola Maharashtra-444001 Pan/Gir No. Aczpk2401Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250Section 69Section 69C

been filed by the revenue arises out of order dated 03.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the NFAC / Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) for the assessment year 2018-19. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: I. "Whether on the facts

Shri Rahul Sumerchand Dodal L/H Shri Sumerchand R Dodal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, however with liberty as mentioned above

ITA 2328/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 250

This appeal has been preferred by the assesseeagainst the order dated 01-05-2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short „NFAC‟)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short „Ld. Commissioner‟) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ... claimed as under: 2 “1. The assessee submits that in the present case, the appellate order u/s 250 passed by the CIT-(A), NFAC, Delhi was issued on the email on 01.05.2023. Thus, the due date for filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT was 30.06.2023. The appeal is being

DCIT, Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 2245/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

ITBA/APL/S/250/20 | 08.01.20 | ACIT —LTU, | 19.02.2020 | 143(3) rws | 2016-17 | Assessee 12025 24- 25 Circle 1, 144C 25/1071981574(1) Mumbai 2. | 1517/Mum | ITBA/APL/S/250/20 | 08.01.20 | NFAC, Delhi | 22.06.2021 | 143(3) rws | 2017-18 | Assessee 12025 24- 25 144C 25/1071982367(1) 3. | 1518/Mum | ITBA/APL/S/250/20 | 08.01.20 | ACIT ... 2243/Mum | ITBA/APL/S/250/20 | 08.01.20 | ACIT — LTU | 03.11.2021 | 143(3) 2018-19 | Department 12025 24- 25 Circle 1, rw.s.144C 25/1071989638(1) Mumbai 5. | 2244/Mum | ITBA/APL/S/250/20 | 08/01/20 | NFAC, Delhi | 22.06.2021 | 143(3) 2017-18 | Department 12025 24- 25 rw.s.144C 25/1071982367(1) 6. | 2245/Mum | ITBA/APL/S/250/20 | 08/01/20 | ACIT —LTU | 19.02.2020 | 143@)r.w. | 2016-17 | Department

DCIT, Circle 3 4, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)