“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

L & W Construction Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1462/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor 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 28/04/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2025-26/1075840032(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us fairly admitted

Monument Properties Private Limited, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, as stated above

ITA 1404/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 115Section 115BSection 148Section 69

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 24/04/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2025-26/1075793352(1) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The issue raised by the assessee in ground

Hosahalli Chikkanna Rajanna, Bengaluru vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1396/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Venkataraja Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 12ASection 138

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 24/04/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2025-26/1075783254(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it was noticed that there was a delay

Neelanchal High Rise LLP, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1343/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Toshniwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 18/04/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2020-21 and raised the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and on the circumstances ... case, the order dated 18th April, 2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi, is bad in law, illegal and abinitio void and the same is liable to be cancelled / quashed set aside. 2. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the NFAC, Delhi, erred in not deleting

Microsoft Research Lab India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is set aside for doing it denovo

ITA 1842/BANG/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Sri Nageshwar RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(3)Section 153Section 153BSection 250

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 24/07/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby

Vikram Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Assessment Unit It Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 917/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanvikram Babulal Shah Vs. Ito Assessment Unit It 3Rd Floor, R. No. 73, Shreenathji Department Bldg, Gulalwadi 142, Kika Street, Piramal Chambers Mumbai- Maharashtra-400 004 400 012 Pan: Cdops4473E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 16.08.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. Vikram

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Wasundhara Vinay Joshi, Powai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5907/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Wasundhara Vinay Joshi, Room No. 830D, C-111, Sunrise Apts., 8Th Floor, Vs. Raheja Vihar, Kautilya Bhavan, Chandivali Farm Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Chandivali, Bandra East, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Afjpk0008C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Chetan Shinde For Revenue : Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-08-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Wherein The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,76,860/- U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Fail To Furnish Demat Account & Copy Of Bank Statement.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ShindeFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 18-08-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1) Whether

Amrita Prabhakar Deodhar, Andheri vs. Income Tax Assistant Commissioner, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5892/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Vikram Singh Yadavshri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh PurohitFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 250Section 40

Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2006-07, date of order 07/08/2025

Rohit Chambers Premises Coop Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5812/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rohit Chambers Premises Assessing Officer, Coop Society Limited, Ward 26(1)(1), Janmabhoomi Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Vs. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai Bkc, Bandra Kurla – 400001. Complex, Bandra (E), Pan – Aaaar44550K. Mumbai 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021, 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. 2018-19. 2. In This Case, The Assessee By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 19.09.2018 Had Declared Gross Total Income Of Rs.26,69,680/- Under The Head Income From The Other Sources & Claimed The Same As Exempt Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 119Section 139Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.03.2021, 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 ... dealt with by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Nutan Laxmi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Additional/JT/DY/ACID/ITO, NFAC, Delhi (IT No. 1214/Mumbai 2023 decided on 27.07.2023 and therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is reproduced herein below :- “8.1 We have given thoughtful consideration

Whitemoon Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5001/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Girish Agrawal ()

Section 51

Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arise out of order dated 22/07/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the present appeal was dismissed

Manish Vijay Chembur Co Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Center, New Delhi

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

ITA 4953/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Assessee Has Filed Following Submissions:-

Section 144Section 69

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 25/06/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi. 2. In various grounds of appeal the assessee has challenged exparte order passed by AO and ld. CIT(A). 3. The brief facts are that the assessee

Dinesh Sunderrao Ghosalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4770/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 11/06/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2018-19, on following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by the Commissioner

K.P. Enterprise, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4646/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainkp Enterprises Vs. Ito, Ward 4(1) Shop No. 55, Hs Desai Ashar It Park, 6Th Compound, Shirsad, Floor, Road No. 16Z, Vajreshwari Road, Vasai (E) Wagle Industrial 401208. Estate, Thane (E). Pan/Gir No. Aakfk5524D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 5

challenging the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2017-18. At the very outset, I noticed that there is delay of 268 2. days in filing present appeal

Manish Madan Rana, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4550/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

different impugned order dated 20.02.2025 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 2019-20. At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of 77 2. days in filing

Income Tax Officer 19.1.1, Piramal Chamber Lal Baug vs. A J Diam, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. The revenue has instituted the present appeal challenging the order dated 06.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3221/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

assessee challenging the different impugned order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2 Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited0 Since all the issues involved in these three appeals are 2. common

Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3219/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3218/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3217/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

Shyam Bhandula, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 45(4), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6808/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment