“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

Gopal Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO(OSD)-Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Manish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Pronouncement : 30/12/2025 Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi dt 28/01/2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The Ld. ClT(A) erred

Suresh Kumar Chawla, Kanta Khaturia Colony vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1101/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalsuresh Kumar Chawla, Income Tax Officer, Kanta Khaturia Colony, Ward-1(2), B-43, Rajsthan-334001. Vs. Rajasthan. Pan-Adppc6555J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (‘The Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 30.01.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10171438 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 16.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Heard The Ld. Sr. Dr & Perused The Materials Available On Record. It Is Prayed By The Assessee That Inadvertently Two Appeals Were Filed, One At The Original Jurisdiction Of The Assessee At Jodhpur Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Registered As Ita No.414/Jodh/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) & Due To Technical Error, The Other Appeal Is Filed Before The Delhi Benches Which Is Present Appeal Before Us. It Is Requested By The Assessee That The Appeal Be Transferred To Jodhpur Bench, Suresh Kumar Chawala Vs. Ito However, Looking To The Facts That The Correct Appeal Has Already Been Listed Before The Jodhpur Bench, Therefore, The Present Appeal Being Duplicate & Hereby Dismissed. The Assessee Is Directed To Pursue To Original Appeal Filed Before The Jodhpur Bench For The Captioned Assessment Year.

Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH

ACIT, Delhi vs. Ms Elco Global Ventures LLP, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 749/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. M/S. Elcom Global Ventures Circle-28(1), Llp, Delhi C-23, Greater Kailash, Enclave Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfe3216H Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Goel, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

BALAGANESH, A. M.: The appeal in ITA No.749/Del/2024 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the 1. order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058356447(1) dated 30.11.2023 against the order of assessment passed ... r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 08.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- 2. “1.That on facts and circumstances of the case

Salim, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5816/DEL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Pronouncement : 30/12/2025 Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi dt 14/08/2024 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the assessee

Jagbir Saroha, Sonipat vs. ITO, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4759/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.09.2024 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10196122 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of the assessment order dated

Aggarwal Agro Industries, Karnal vs. ITO-Ward-1, Karnal

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

ITA 2544/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manav Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69C

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 02.05.2024 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are, based on the information ... Accordingly, Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,23,73,375/-. 9. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC, Delhi and filed grounds of appeal as well as additional evidences. Ld. CIT (A) after going through the submissions and relying on various judgments

Deven Chaudhry, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

these appeals have been filed by two different assessees against separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.11.2024 and 05.03.2025 respectively, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since common facts and issue are involved in both these appeals, though ... same by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions, which was more or less similar to the submissions made before the Assessing Officer, which is reproduced

Deepa Agarwal, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Gwalior

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

ITA 481/AGR/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69A

pronouncement 29.12.2025 ORDER Assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Addl./JCIT(A)-1” for short), Thiruvanantpuram dated 20.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the case ... addition u/s. 69A of the Act to the extent of Rs.13,00,000/-. 3. Aggrieved with the above said order, assessee preferred appeal before NFAC. Several notices were issued to the assessee and there was no compliance from the assessee’s side. No submissions were made before the learned

Dharamveer Rathore, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer Guna, Guna

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 439/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10467367 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25.06.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are more or less similar, the same ... appeal : “1. Because under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is bad in law and 1 void ab initio, having been passed in violation

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Hardayal Milk Products Private Limited, Shikohabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

ITA 342/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25.06.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income ... determined total taxable income at Rs.2,59,89,006/-. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions filed by assessee, learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the other disallowances made by the Assessing Officer relating to subsidized

Sudhir Chaudhry, Mathura vs. Dc/Ac Circle 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

these appeals have been filed by two different assessees against separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.11.2024 and 05.03.2025 respectively, for the Assessment Year 2017- 18. ITA Nos.08 & 246/Agr/2025 2. Since common facts and issue are involved in both ... same by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions, which was more or less similar to the submissions made before the Assessing Officer, which is reproduced

Narmadaben Rajivbhai Ughreja, Morbi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Morbi

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

ITA 460/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav. Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 50c

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

The Alewa Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, Alewa, Jind vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Jind

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

ITA 768/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Year 2015-16. 2. In the present appeal the assessee has raised following grounds: 1. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred on facts of the case and in Law while dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal without ... going into the merits and detailed grounds of appeal filed along with annexures. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in complying the principle of natural justice. 3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred both

Swaran Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mohali

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Chauhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

PHYSICAL HEARING ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27/06/2024 , passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That the learned

Bharat Kumar, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 646/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144

Pronouncement : 29/12/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT / NFAC, Delhi dt. 26/12/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted an application for withdrawal

Balasaheb Vitthal Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Pune, Aayakar Vibhag, Pmt Building, Swargate

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

ITA 674/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Balasaheb Vitthal Shinde Ito, Ward-5(4), Pune Chaledi, Nasarapur, Taluka Bhor, Vs. Pune – 412213 Pan: Anips1140A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak S Sasar Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S SasarFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 63

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment ... account of short term capital gain and tower rent of Rs.1,57,138/- as income from other sources. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed certain additional evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has accepted and forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer for filing

Nandu Atmaram Wajekar, Panvel Dist Raigad vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel Dist Raigad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Nandu Atmaram Wajekar Acit, Panvel C001 Plot No.257, Shree Vs. Mahalaxmi Rupali Cinema Road, Panvel – 410206, Maharashtra Pan: Aadpw9879Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 183Section 187(1)Section 187(3)Section 271A

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18 confirming the penalty of Rs.69,54,070/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... being 10% of the tax payable u/s 115BBE of the Act by observing as under: 4 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 5 6 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee

Nilons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Jcti Range 2, Pune

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

ITA 1267/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. N. C. Shilpa

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY