← All Phrases

“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
43
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
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

Smt. Kanta Shroff, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 28(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrasmt. Kanta Shroff, Acit, B-25/3, Okhla Industrial Estate Circle-28(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aaops1059H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 20.05.2025 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) For Non-Prosecution. Before Us, The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Issued Several Notices Which Were Not Received & They Were Uploaded The Portal Of The Department, However, The Appellant Was Not Aware Of The Proceedings Nor Such Notices Were Brought To His Knowledge By The Accountant Of The Appellant, Therefore, The Compliance Could Not Be Made Either Before The Learned Ao Or Before Smt. Kanta Shroff Vs. Acit The Cit(A) & Accordingly Prayed That The Matter May Be Sent Back To The File Of The Learned Ao For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250(6)

SUDHIR PAREEK, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A) in short] dated 20.05.2025 passed U/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year

Surender Singh, Panipat, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3024/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 144

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms

Surender Singh, Panipat, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat, Ward-

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3023/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms

S.R. Ashok & Associates Private Limited, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2998/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms

Genesis Associates P Ltd, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Del-W-()

In the result Assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 952/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69C

1 ITA Nos. 952 & 1084/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY

Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), I.P Estate vs. Genesis Associates Pvt. Ltd., Kirti Nagar

In the result Assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 1084/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69C

1 ITA Nos. 952 & 1084/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY

Konda Karabi, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical for statistical purposes

ITA 4/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaykonda Karabi, D.C.I.T., G/15, Nargis, Ashiana Garden Sonari, Circle-1, Vs. Jamshedpur-831011 Jamshedpur. Pan No. Abwpk 3757 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10238192 dated 07/11/2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Shri K.N. Prasad, ld. A.R. represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khubchand

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

BENCH 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 25/11/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. Shri R.R. Mittal, ld. AR is represented on behalf of the assessee

Kiran Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Dhamtari

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 655/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 26.08.2025 for the Assessment Year

Bhola Prasad Yadav, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 288/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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 ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, vide order passed under section 250 of the Income

Late Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan, Motihari vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 287/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

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 ... Chandra Kishore Mishra Through Legal Heir Alok Ranjan, Gopalpur, Motihari, East Champaran, Motihari, Bihar, 845401. 2. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Benches, Patna. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Anjani Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna

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

ITA 201/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

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 ... order forwarded to: 1. Anjani Kumar, Jalalpur, Sahay Nagar, Rupaspur, Patna, Bihar, 801506. 2. ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Benches, Patna. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Sunil Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

ITA 168/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250

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 ‘the Ld. CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Kripa Shanker, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Patna

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

ITA 117/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54

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 ... Kripa Shanker, BAGH BHUP SINGH LANE, GULZARBAGH, ALAMGANJ CHOWKI, Patna, Bihar, 800008. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Patna, . 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Benches, Patna. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Bhavinbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, Surat vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 874/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

challenging the impugned order dt. 30.06.2025 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 2017-18. The only effective ground raised by the assessee is 2. with regard to challenging the order

Arjun Oil Traders, Surat vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 147/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Srt/2024

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 250

order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act'), dated 28.12.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Private Limited, Maredubaka vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kakinada

In the result, we herein, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the CIT(A) order and vacate the addition of Rs

ITA 546/VIZ/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Vs. Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Maredubaka, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aaics2638B (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 12/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Mrs. Hema Latha. K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

sale of edible rice bran oil, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 2 Krishna Prabhas Agro Oils Private Limited vs. ACIT 04.09.2025, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

Wheatons Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT / DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita rinesh, JCIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 06.05.2025 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ... That the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the claim of provision for future expenses of Rs. 34,60,713/- under section 37(1) of the IT Act by treating the same as contingent liability. 2 Wheatons Design Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. 2. That

Creative Realmart Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 457/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Filing Of Appeal In Form-35 & Appellant Has Not Done Any Non-Compliance As Per Section 249(4)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Kedawat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

year 2014- 15 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. That on the law and facts & circumstances of the case the Ld CIT (Appeals) NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has filed return in response to the notice u/s 148 and hence the appellant was not liable

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Kota vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-2, Kota

In the result the appeal of

ITA 199/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 438Section 43B

appellant aggrieved with the disallowance made by the AO CPC, filed appeal which was adjudicated on 30.07.2022 with the following remarks of CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi - “5.3 Ground No 2: Disallowance under Section 43B of the Act: The appellant has claimed that an amount ... provisions of section 43B of the IT Act. The assessee has filed appeal against the above order before the CIT(A), NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide his order dated 30.07.2022 directed the AO to verify the claim and restrict the disallowance under section 438 to only the amount