“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kolkata vs. A J Cast Alloys Private Limited, Howrah

ITA 1685/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act") by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that the appeal of the revenue is barred

Suresh Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 63(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 111ASection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 250o

passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld.CIT(A)] for assessment year 2011-12. 2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that the appeal ... That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law as well as in facts of the case by not providing the appellant with reasonable opportunity of hearing. 3. That

Rameshkumar Kandasamy, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

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

ITA 3257/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ramesh Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, 627/1, Hallmark Knit Fabs, Vs. Ward 2 (1), Rakkiyapalayam, Tiruppur Kangeyam Road, Tiruppur – 641 606. Pan: Ahhpr 4639J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.S.P. Sri Harini, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.T. Krishnamoorthy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 02.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. :- 2 -: 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Order Passed By The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: Ms.S.P. Sri Harini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.T. Krishnamoorthy, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 02.09.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year

Mrs. Surekha Legal Representative of Late Shri. Devaraj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2419/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250

ITA No.2419/Bang/2025 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Rep. of Late Shri Devaraj, since dead), Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)- 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marriott International Inc, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Krishna KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar, Shri Karan Jain

Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy

Suman Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8998/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarsuman Educational Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemption)- 39-A, 3Rd Floor, Maker Tower-F, 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cuff Parade, Colaba, Vs. Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aahts 1944 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Tiwari

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 68

Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee, challenging the order dated 10.10.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2020-21. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under

Mrs. Gauri Hiren Bhanu, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8275/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23, which in turn arises from the order under section

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Varun Jaisingh Asher, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 8251/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Shengde, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

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

Senthilkumar Thangaraj, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8221/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of Order 18/09/2025. The impugned order emanated from

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8172/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

BENCH: A group of appeals of the same assessee filed 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 Years

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8171/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8170/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Shanklesha Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8091/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpiashanklesha Construction Dcit Circle 19(3), Mumbai Sai Nirvana, Opp Century Rayon, Piramal Chambers, Morarjee Vs. Near Shahad Station, Kalyan, Mills Compound, Next To Thane 421103 Bharatmata Cinema Hall, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtfs2291K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush Chhajed CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri. Arun Kanti Datta-CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

Harsha Bojarao Devraj, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8012/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred appeal against the order, dated 25/09/2025, 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 25/05/2023, passed

Mobil Trust Series 06, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - (1)(1), Thane

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 7559/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan &For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 115TSection 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 11/03/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 27/06/2024, passed under ... enclosed as Exhibit 5. And Copy of submission dated 20-03-2024 also enclosed as Exhibit 6. 4. Appeal Filed before the CIT-A NFAC We would like to further submit that aggrieved by the additions/ disallowance made in assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated

Shashank Merchant, Andheri West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7525/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, C.A. & Shri Veetrag Chhajed – CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”), order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (further for brevity, “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2017-18, date

Aditya Ramsingh Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 17(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra

ITA 7180/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora

Section 143(3)Section 144B

Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the Order, dated 21/08/2025, 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 26/03/2024

Jayesh Kanungo HUF, Khetwadi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

ANIKESH BANERJEE [J.M]: Instant appeal of the assessee 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 ... assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the id. C.I.T. (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order dated 30/12/2017 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 by ld. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1), Mumbai on either

Shairul Impex, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1)), Mumbai

ITA 6613/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 147Section 148Section 151A

Pronouncement 06.03.2026 ORDER Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee to challenge the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed ... Reassessment is bad in law. 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in upholding the Reassessment proceedings for as the Notice under section 148 of the Act is issued in violation of section 151A

ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Willish Mukesh Maru, Mumbai

ITA 6168/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Adake & Shri KartikFor Respondent: Shri Raghvendra P. Chambolkar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 16.07.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises from the order passed