“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

Kome Koravadi Vividoddesha Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi

ITA 3061/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale – Advocate, Standing

Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi vide dated 08/10/2025 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that Id. CIT-A erred

Mundaganamane Group Gramagala Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamit Mundaganamane, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

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

ITA 2843/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Smitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80P

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi under section 250 of the Act dated 24.07.2024 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred

Udaya Souharda Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2472/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 14/10/2025 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however the effective issue raised is that the learned

Shri. Shanthisagar Co Op Credit Society Limited, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 2081/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 21.08.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised extensive grounds of appeal numbered as Ground

Sree Cauvery Souharda Credit Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1854/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sumana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR

Section 10Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Act dated 24-06-2025 by the NFAC, Delhi both for the assessment years 2018-19. 2. First, we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1854/Bang/2025

Sri Guru Ramalingeshwara Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamitha, Maski vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1174/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee, is against the order dated 22-03-2025 passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre-NFAC, for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee through Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the appeal is that order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Analog Devices India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2074/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar & Shri Nirmal MathewFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT (DR)

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Mr. Yogesh Santosh Gulvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No.1 to 14 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 554/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: this tribunal on the following grounds as under:- 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding the case on merits and without appreciating the facts submitted in the Grounds of Appeal.

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 12/09/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated ... following grounds of appeal: “1. That the appellant has filed the present appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), which is hereinafter referred to as the said order for sake of brevity and convenience. Assessment Year 2012-2013 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with

Nityanand Nagar Vibhag -IV Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 494/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(D)Section 80P(2)(d)

Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.11.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 2 NITYANAND NAGAR VIBHAG (Appeals), Delhi [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short

Ganesharam Galbaram Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8349/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Abbas Fakhruddin, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal Kaku, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Sheetal Jewelleryhouse LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 8124/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpiaacit 19(3), Mumbai Sheetal Jewellery House Llp Room No. 513, 5Th Floor, Piramal Vs. 503/504, Brahans Business Park, Chamber, Parel Mumbai 400012 Off Mahakali, Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acqfs9693D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे / Assessee By: Shri. Paresh Shaparia /Revenue By: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 02.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee [J.M]: Instant Appeal Of The Revenue Was Preferred Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)"] Order Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] Order Passed For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Date Of Order 25.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao"], Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 26.12.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 36

ANIKESH BANERJEE [J.M]: Instant appeal of the revenue was preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"] order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] order passed for the Assessment Year

Rachana Kirti Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7679/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarrachna Kirti Doshi Vs. Ito, Ward 19(3)(1), Flat No. 44, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Gitanjali, Co Op Housing Piramal Chamber, Society, 73/75, Walkeshwar Lalbaug, Parel Road, Mumbai- 400012 Mumbai - 400006 Pan/Gir No. Aempd4452R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Ground Of Re-Opening Of The Assessment. The 2 Appellant Pleads That The Ao Wrongly Re-Opened The Assessment.

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 68

assessee challenging the impugned order 23.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2014-15. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1. a) On the facts and circumstances of the case

Krishna Venkappa Shetty, Mumbai vs. Jao Ward 2(1), Thane

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

ITA 7256/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarkrishna Venkappa Shetty Vs. Jao Ward 2(1), Thane Unique Heights B Wing, 706 Thane - 400602 Poonam Garden, Mira Bhayander Road, Mira Road, Thane -401107 Pan/Gir No. Bntps8180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Haresh Joshi Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 01.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Faceless Assessing Unit Has Erred In Making Addition Of Bogus Purchase Of Rs.39,37,500/- U/S 69C Of The Act In Gross Violation Of The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made There Under.

Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69C

assessee challenging the impugned order 01.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2019-20. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1. The Faceless Assessing Unit has erred in making addition of bogus purchase

Anand Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit Mumbai, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7215/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankaranand Sahakari Vs. Ito Ward 41(2)(1), Pathasanstha Maravadit Mumbai Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Ground Floor, Janakalyan Mumbai - 400051 Hsg Society, Varsha Nagar Parksite Vikhroli, Mumbai- 400079 Pan/Gir No. Aaeaa3233G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravindra Naik Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 09.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Not Considering Entire Income Of The Assessee Eligible For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I).

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee challenging the impugned order 09.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in not considering entire income ... assessee eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 2 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in considering incorrect due date of filing of return and denying deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 3. Your appellant further reserves the rights to add, amend or alter the aforesaid grounds

Arvinder Singh Sahni, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 6778/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.)

Section 250Section 54

Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.08.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhaliya vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Space 4 Business Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7156/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7156/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Space 4 Business Solutions P. Ltd., 3588, Main Bazar Old Subzi Mandi, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aabcs-5900-P बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Ara Centre Jhandewalan Extn. ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110017 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Nitin Gulati, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 69A

VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 26.09.2025, for AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed addition of Rs.35

Yuga Printpack Private Limited vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6503/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.6503/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Yuga Printpack P. Ltd., C/O Ipso Legal, 1St Floor, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi 110014 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaacy-6342-G बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Cr Building, Faridabad, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Saxena & Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocates प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena & Ms. Sumangla SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69

VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.09.2025, for AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made

Dilip Kumar Chopra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3) (1), Surat

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

ITA 865/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144

NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28.07.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The brief