“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

Bikas Bhalotia, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1421/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bikas Bhalotia, Dutta House, 94, Vs. Ito, Ward 37(1), Kolkata Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1341 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Chaudhury, Fca Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Chaudhury, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT (Sr DR)

Section 147

directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 21.4.2025 in Appeal No.CIT(A), NFAC/2015-16/10150324 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that ... appellant: Bikas Bhalotia, Dutta House, 94, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata 2. The Respondent : ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT- 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //// By order Asst

City Institute, B D Road, Chitradurga vs. Income-Tax Officer, Chitadurga

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

ITA 774/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sree Raksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 10Section 12Section 142Section 144Section 69A

filed by City Institute (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2017-18 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 13.1.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income

Ramakrishna Gavanahally, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

Accordingly appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1756/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. S Pahani Kumar CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 133Section 142Section 144Section 249Section 251

assessing officer. However, in conclusion the learned CIT – A that appeal is set-aside. 4. Subsequently another order was passed on 4/6/2025 by the NFAC in respect of the second appeal wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The reason given was that the appeal is dismissed in limine ... dismissed as infructuous for statistical purposes as appeal has already been decided. 5. Assessee is in appeal against the appellate order passed by NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee holding as above. 6. The learned authorised representative vehemently supported that the order has already been passed by the learned

Sri.Girish Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1725/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Shreeraksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

operative Society Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2017-18 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 11.07.2025 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of Rs.31

Rebecca Morris, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1639/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Rebecca Morris (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2016-17 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 21.3.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.ws. 144B of the Income

Upasani Super Speciality Hospital Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in proceedings under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 2023– 24. 2. The solitary grievance raised by the assessee

Evolution Golf Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 754/MUM/2025[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2010-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 05/12/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2010-11 on following grounds of appeal : “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred

Income Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gopal Ramchand Kanjani, Mumbaifh

ITA 733/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramaniam, AR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 16.12.2024 for Assessment Years

Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5322/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 06/03/2025 past by NFAC Delhi for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal : “1. The Id.AO erred in not taking the approval from the higher authority

Jaro Institute of Technology Management and Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5062/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Jaro Institute Of Technology Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Management & Research Ltd. Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai 11Th Floor, Vikas Centre, Dr. C. G. Vs. Road, Chembur, Fci, S.O. Mumbai – 400074. Pan/Gir No. Aaccj2107Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Thakkar Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The 1" Appeal Of 118 Days & Ought To Have Considered The Bonafide Reasons & Compelling Circumstances, Supported With Affidavit, That Had Precluded The Appellant To File The 1" Appeal In Time, 2.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Disallowance Of Sales & Promotion Expenses Of Rs.2,73,78,889, Jaro Institution Of Technology Management & Research Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised

Limrass Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5002/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi, seriously erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in arbitrarily confirming the Impugned Ex- party Assessment Order Dated ... Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049246017(1), Passed U/S 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi ; (B) In the matter of IMPUGNED EX-PARTY ASSESSMENT ORDER Dated: 22-03-2016, passed by the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward

Shri. Vijaysingh Madhavrao Patwardhan, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-26(1), Mumbai (Now DCIT-41(1)(1), Mumbai)

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

ITA 4993/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Binoy Rajen Shah, Mumbai vs. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4986/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. HifzurrahmanFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.06.2025, 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

Chattanathan Devarajan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4976/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 192Section 194Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078167303(1), dated 03.07.2025 passed against the penalty order by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income

Ramavtar Investment & Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4866/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Commissioner, However, With A Delay Of Approximately 725 Days. The Assessee, Before The Ld. Commissioner By Filing Form No.35 Mentioned The Following Reason For Occurring Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shingate, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 69C

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025, 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 ... under: “The appellant Ramavtar Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., having PAN: AABCR5419C is preferring an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), u/s. 246A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the Order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ward

ACIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Trapti Trading & Investments Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4851/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal filed by the revenue arises out of order dated 19/05/2025 passed by NFAC for assessment year 2013-14 on following grounds of appeal: 2 ITA 4851/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 Trapti Trading & Investments Private Limited “1. "On the facts

Setron Textile Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4847/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143Section 147Section 148

Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 30/06/2020 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

Baban Chindhu Harane, Tal - Sahapur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan

ITA 4834/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Baban Chindhu Harane Ito Ward 2(2), Kalyan At- Changyacha Pada, Kalyan Kharade Bhiwandi Vs. Maharashtra - 421301 Tal-Sahapur Maharashtra - 420601 Pan: Aczph1742D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (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 The Instant Case, As Per The Information Available With The Department In Insight Portal The Assessee Had Purchased A Property On A Consideration Of Rs.4,00,000/- As Against The Stamp Duty Valuation At Rs.10,64,000/- & Therefore The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons For Reopening & Issuing Notice Dated 11.02.2023 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Making The Addition Of Rs.6,64,000/- Being Difference Between The Stamp

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Ltimindtree Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (2)(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4831/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriltimindtree Limited Vs. Acit, Circle (2)(2)(1) (Formerly Larse & Toubro Mumbai/Cit(A)-Nfac- Infotech Limited) Delhi L & T Technology Center, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor , Gate No. 5, Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1681P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat- Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 92C

BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LTIMindtree Limited Vs. ACIT, Circle (2)(2)(1) (formerly Larse & Toubro Mumbai/CIT(A)-NFAC- Infotech Limited) Delhi L & T Technology Center, Room no. 545, 5th Floor , Gate No. 5, Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Powai, Mumbai ... appeal are as follows: “1.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeals Centre ("Ld. NFAC") vide order dated October 17, P a g e | 2 A.Y.2021-22 2024 under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") erred

Usha Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 4755/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata DedhiaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69