“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

Javeed Khan Ahemad Khan, Yawal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 2738/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 22/10/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), which is arising

Peda Subba Rao Unnam, Addanki vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ongole

ITA 1684/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us, There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee To Present The Case. However, At The Threshold Of The Hearing Of The Appeal, We Observed From The Record That Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Chartered Accountant, The Authorized Representative For The Assessee Appellant Had Filed A Letter, Dated 05/12/2025 (Copy Placed On Record) Wherein It Was Submitted That “An Appeal Against The Very Same Appellate Order Passed By The Cit(A), Nafc Is Pending Before Hon’Ble

Section 147

present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi, dated 13/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income

Rajendra Rampal, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2167/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

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 ... That the Appeal Order passed u/s 250 dated 05.04.2025 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, Income Tax Department, is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice. 2. Your Appellant submits that the framing of assessment order upon

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2068/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

Lalit Sen Lane Pratibandhi Unnayan Samity, Murshidabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 (4), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 2175/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

order is as under: “The short question falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee thereby condoning the delay in filing the Form 10B of the Act. The learned Tribunal after ... dated 3.1.2020 which admittedly gives power to condone the delay in filing Form 10B up to a period of 365 days. The CIT (Appeals), NFAC also took note of a decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries reported

Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank, Burdhaman vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2106/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2106/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank …………………................................……….…Appellant Vill & Po. Hat Sridharpur, Memari-I, Dist- Bardhaman, W.B. – 713146. [Pan: Aacas8623A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Burdwan…..….………………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. Goenka & S. Goenka, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2020–21, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Sustained The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Deduction Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 80P Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. For The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Taxable Income After Claiming Deduction Of ₹1,99,10,459 Under Section 80P Of The Act. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2020–21, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction claimed

Debashis Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.947/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Debashis Das………………………………………................................……….…Appellant Uttara Tritiya Housing Complex, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Near City Center-2, W.B– 700156. [Pan: Aixpd81639Q] Vs. Acit, International Taxaion-1(1), Kolkata ..L..….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015–16. The Ld. Cit(A) Sustained The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Salary Income Earned By The Assessee During His Short-Term Foreign Assignment In The Philippines. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 366 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 5(2)(b)Section 6(1)

Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2015–16. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of salary income earned

S 285 Venkatachalapathi Pacb, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Salem

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

ITA 2552/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2551 &2552/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 &2019-20 V. The Ito, S285 Venkatachalapathi Pacb, Muthunackenpatty, Omalur, Ward-1(2), Salem 636 455. Salem. [Pan:Aaeas8632B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 271A

KUMAR GIRI, JM: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] both dated 14.08.2025 for Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019- 20. 2. Brief facts for AY 2017-18 are that the AO made

S285 Venkatachalapathi Pacb, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Salem

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

ITA 2551/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 271A

Vivek Kumarasamy, Kannimadaiyapudur vs. Income Tax Officer, Erode

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

ITA 2512/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2512/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vasanthanayagan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.04.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year ... Erode i.e., [JAO], which has been referred to in at page 3 of the assessment order of the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC. We find that the CBDT issued a Notification dated 29.03.2022 formulating “the e-assessment of income assessment Scheme, 2022”. The Scheme provides that (a) the assessment/re-assessment

Kamaraj Priya, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2484/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2484/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. The Ito, Kamaraj Priya, 2/94, Chinnaian Street, Ward-1, Karuvakurichi, Tiruvarur 614 018. Tiruvarur. [Pan:Dwqpp1186K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

that the impugned notice u/s.148 dated 28.03.2024 has been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tiruvarur i.e; (JAO) and not by the NFAC which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. We also find that the impugned notice u/s 148 has been issued after CBDT Notification dated

Media Adds India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward.4(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2446/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2446/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Ito, Media Adds India Private Limited 19/5, Rams Flats, Raja Street, Corporate Ward-4(1), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aafcm9696N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

being adjudicated. 4. In fact, this appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, for the Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) in estimating the business income

Devaraj Ilavarasan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2444/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. The Ito, Devaraj Ilavarasan, 2/217-C, Siddar Koil Main Road, Ward 1(6), Sivathapuram, Salem 636 307. Salem. [Pan: Abopi2465G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 144

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Sandeep Karanam, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2124/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Ajay V Hande, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act but did not get the relief. Finally, the assessee filed appeal before the learned NFAC/ CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. . Page 3 of 6 7. The learned CIT(A) observed that ... details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the CPC rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. NFAC/ CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The learned AR before us submitted that the appellant assessee rightly claimed the credit

Gajanana Shamanna Talageri, Gadag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gadag

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

ITA 1973/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250(6)

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 14/05/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2025-26/1076198242(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the materials available on record

Vakkala Ravi Kumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1874/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 14/02/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2024-25/1073308251(1) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the outset, it was noticed that there was a delay

Arun Kumar Hurudi Mogappa, Hanbal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 1572/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bharath Raj N, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC Delhi vide order dated 20/05/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2025-26/1076308640(1) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited, Halkusagal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gadag

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari The Income Tax Officer, Bank Limited, Ward 1, Halkusagal. Vs. Gadag Pan: Aaaav1081D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA

Section 143Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 5615/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

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

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 5601/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 263

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