“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

Vikash Agarwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1896/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 91(2)Section 91(3)Section 92(2)

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... forwarded to: 1. Vikash Agarwal, DA-17, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700064. 2. I.T.O., Ward-61(3), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Tamilnadu Co-Operative Union, Chennai vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 59/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble George George K & Hon’Ble Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.Reddy Prakash, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 10Section 143(3)

INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee – Cooperative Society against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) / NFAC, [‘CIT(A)’ in short], Delhi dated 26.11.2024 for AY-2018-19. 2.0 Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Cooperative Society ... after claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the NFAC vide order dated 29.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act at a total income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumalgounder, Namakkal

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2155/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2155/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 269SSection 271D

Finance Act 2017 and came into effect from 01.04.2017, the Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Pandharinath Tukaram Pathare vs. ACIT (NFAC) Delhi in its order in ITA No. 46/PUN/2023 dated 28.03.2023 has considered the above issue. The findings of the Hon'ble ITAT is reproduced here

K. Rohin Kumar, Nagerkoil vs. ITO, Ward-3, Nagerkoil

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

ITA 1538/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms S Sanuhita for Mr. RFor Respondent: Smt. Pushpa Hemachand

Section 147Section 282

MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 27.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16. K Rohin Kumar Vs ITO, Ward-3, Nagercoil :: 2 :: 2. Brief facts of the case

M/S. Bay Forge Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Co, Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

issued u/s.147 of the Act and the assessment was completed vide order dated 29.12.2011. Subsequently the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC and ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 12.07.2024 has confirmed the order of the Assessing officer. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT ... brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation u/s.115JB of the Act as 31.03.2005 for the A.Y.2005-06. Subsequently the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC and ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 12.07.2024 has confirmed the order of the Assessing officer. 17. We note that the assessee had a reduction

ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1647/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

Manju Anand Legal Hier of Ms. Lalitha Narayanan, Kammanahalli Main Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1075/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year:2015-16 Ms. Manju Anand, Legal Heir Of Ms. Lalitha Narayanan, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. B 102, Anand Valmark, Ward 4(3)(1), Vs. Kammanahalli Main Road, Bangalore Begur Hubli, Bangalore - 560076 Pan: Acppn8767N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

post and also by E-mail. Thereafter, proceedings 148A continued but did not file any return of income. Subsequently, the case was transferred to NFAC which was once again returned back to the Jurisdictional Officer and subsequently notice was issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The Assessee replied with

Quintiles Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1025/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Dosjibhai Chellabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 6517/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19 Dosjibhai Chellabhai Patel, Commissioner Of Income Tax 2/201, Surbhi Apartment, (Appeals), Dafatry Road, Vs. Nfac, Delhi Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Pan : Aadpp5454C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Mansi Joshi For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 30-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing The Appeal As Pointed Out By The Registry. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Material Placed On Record, We Find That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal & Hence, The Delay Is Hereby Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 50C

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dosjibhai Chellabhai Patel, Commissioner of Income Tax 2/201, Surbhi Apartment, (Appeals), Dafatry Road, vs. NFAC, Delhi Malad East, Mumbai-400097. PAN : AADPP5454C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Mansi Joshi For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.DR (virtually present) Date of Hearing ... This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 30-07-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay

Radheshyam Shyamlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-11(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6103/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13 Radheshyam Shyamlal Gupta, Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Ward-11(2)(2), Anuradha Satyamurty Residency Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.16, N.S. Road No.11, M.K.Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400049. Pan : Aabpg4019L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jay Thakkar For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 04-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Wherein The Ao Has Determined The Long Term Capital Gain At Rs. 37,21,230/-, Being The 50% Share Of The Assessee In Respect Of Transfer Of 2 Property, Namely, Flat No. 2A & 2B, Anuradha Satyamurty Residency, Plot No.16, 11Th Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, Which The Assessee Has Sold Jointly With His Wife, Mrs. Shubhadra R. Gupta. The Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Sustained The Order Of The Ao & Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 143(3)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 04-07-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessment in this

Mohammed Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5224/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69

impugned orders dt. 15.07.2025 and 17.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal; The appellant submits the following grounds ... passed on 19-02- 2024 and an appeal against the aforesaid order was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 06- 03-2025. Therefore, there has been a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Md. Sharif Nizamuddin Dalvi , Mumbai 2. Further

Mohammed Sharif Nizamuddin, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5223/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69

Rajesh Mohan Singh Hajari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 3 of assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 5157/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohan Singh Hajari, Income Tax Officer, Type 4 B/293, Ward-16(3)(1), Dr. Bam Hosp., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Byculla, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aazph4367E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Bandi For Revenue : Shri Kavan N. Limbasiya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 21-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Of Reopening The Case Under Section 148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao, The Reassessment Order

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh BandiFor Respondent: Shri Kavan N. Limbasiya, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 21-07-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

Rithwik Foundation for Performing Arts, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4527/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarang Mehta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad,(CIT-DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Fateh Steel Metal Works, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 5084/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Mohammad Ammar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S Gupt, CIT DR

Section 144

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 26.10.2023 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, it was submitted

Mohd Ayyub, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandramohd. Ayyub Vs. Ito, Ward – 28(1) C-15/1, Shaheen Bagh, Civic Centre, Abul Fazal, Enclave-Ii, Minto Road, Jamia Nagar Okhla, New Delhi – 110002 New Delhi – 110025 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Boxpa9409P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.07.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter P a g e | 2 Mohd. Ayyub (AY: 2015-16) referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078543311

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4445/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

with the adjudication with the assistance of Ld. DR. 2.1 In the lead case, the appeal arises from order of Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.05.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case the first appeal was filed

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4444/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4443/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4442/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250