“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

Yeluvahalli Venkateshappa Lakshman, Bangarapet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

Accordingly, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1530/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nadeem Lasani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

Section 147Section 148

Shri Yeluvahalli Venkateshappa Lakshman (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2015-16 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 16.6.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 21.3.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B

Sunil Shigli, Presently in United Kingdom vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1500/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Chidambar Chikkerur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 10Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Shri Sunil Shigli (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2022-23 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 20.5.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 14.3.2024 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

Cryptopy Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-5(5)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1417/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Navneeth Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh,CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Cryptopy Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-5(5)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1416/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Navneeth Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh,CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

N V Babu Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1129/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Thirumala Naidu K., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 250

ITA Nos.1125 to 1129/Bang/2025 N.V. Babu Reddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

N V Babu Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1128/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Thirumala Naidu K., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 250

ITA Nos.1125 to 1129/Bang/2025 N.V. Babu Reddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

N V Babu Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1127/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Thirumala Naidu K., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 250

ITA Nos.1125 to 1129/Bang/2025 N.V. Babu Reddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

N V Babu Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1126/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Thirumala Naidu K., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 250

ITA Nos.1125 to 1129/Bang/2025 N.V. Babu Reddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

N V Babu Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Centre Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1125/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Thirumala Naidu K., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 250

ITA Nos.1125 to 1129/Bang/2025 N.V. Babu Reddy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (As Sucessor to Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited Which in Turn Is Sucessor to Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4964/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 28Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

S. Ashwinikumar & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 16(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4848/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Benna Pilla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) S. Ashwinikumar & Co. Ito Ward 16(3)(3) 9/11, Bombay Mutual Aayakar Bhavan Chambers, 1St Floor Vs. M.K. Road 19/21 Ambala Doshi Marg Mumbai-400 020. Haman Street, Fort Mumbai-400 023. Pan : Aacfs5995C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Singh (Virtually)

Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal with the following grounds of appeal. 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. C.I.T. (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the impugned assessment order dated 11-12-2019 passed u/s.143(3) by ld. Assessing Officer, the ITO, Ward ... quashed and set aside. 2 S. Ashwinikumar & Co. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. C.I.T. (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-partee without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard and even without properly appreciating the issues involved

Conwood Construction and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

ITA 4756/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 270(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vimal Pukhraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4305/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrivimal Pukhraj Jain Income Tax Officer Ward 806, Dheeraj Enclave, Borivali East, Vs. 42(1)(5) Opp. Bhor Industries, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, 400066 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipj6511H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. Karuna Kurle Shirdhankar /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 14.02.2023 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –Nfac Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 50,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer By Invoking Provisions Of Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Non-Compliance Of The Notices.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Notice That There Is A Delay In Filling Appeal Of 807 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. KarunaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

RENU JAUHRI [A.M]: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] dated 14.02.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year ... following grounds of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) –NFAC has confirmed the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- levied by the assessing officer by invoking provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the income

Wizcraft International Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3824/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 14Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 7

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, both dated17.10.2024 for A.Ys. 2022-23 and 2014- 15. In ITA No.3823/Mum/2025, the assessee has challenged the addition in the quantum assessment

Wizcraft International Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3823/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

Section 14Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 7

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. K K Ventura, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands

ITA 5331/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 260Section 68

ORDER The present appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 12/08/2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, in relation to the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S

Rishi Parkash, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Srikaram Prescience Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3229/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 143(1)Section 44A

This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘the ld. CIT (E)] dated 11.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15 raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on facts and circumstances

Deepak Dudeja, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3228/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S