“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

Rashmi Ranjan Sahoo, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward Kendrapada, Income Tax Department

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 682/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiarashmi Ranjan Sahoo, I.T.O., Durgapurpatna, Basuaghai, Bankual Ward- Kendrapada, Vs. Bo, Old Town, Bhubaneswar-751002 Bhubaneswar. (Odisha) Pan No. Fjrps 9505 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

BENCH 1. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10270396 dated 05/09/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Shri K.R. Mohapatra, ld. A.R. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Banerjee

Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of

ITA 332/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

Parikshit Ramesh Fuke, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed for

ITA 393/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Parikshit Ramesh Fuke, Ito, Ward-1(2), 11, Fuke Patil Marg, Ambazari Road, Vs Bsnl Rttc Building, Balaji Mandir Nagpur Urban, Road, Seminary Hills, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440033. Nagpur, Mharashtra. [Pan: Aabpf6490J] Pin:440033. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT

Shivprasad Shevade, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Bsnl Rttc Building, Nagpur

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

ITA 370/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shivprasad Shevade, Ito, Ward-4(4), Plot No. 80, Attadeep Nagar, Vs Bsnl Rttc Building, Seminary Near Juni Vasti Manewada, Nagpur, Hills, Nagpur, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440027. Mharashtra–440033. [Pan: Eqops0368M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT

Anant Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Barabanki

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

ITA 499/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.05.2025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee against the orders of the ld. Assessing

M/S Jil Information Technology Limited, New Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 363/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 M/S Jil Information Technology Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, 54, Ja Annexe, Basant Lok, Income Tax, Range-3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Lucknow Pan: Aaacj8827B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 19.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Under Section 143(1) Passed For The A.Y. 2021-22 By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru On 13.11.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Disposing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Passing An Ex-Parte Order Which Is In Gross Violation Of Natural Justice & Fair Play As The Assessee Was Not Provided Reasonable Opportunity To Have Its Say On The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Addition Of Rs.78,17,622/-And Also The Addition Of Rs.74,913/-Do Not Fall Under The Purview Of The Clauses Enshrined In Section 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Also Failed To Appreciate That The Additions Made In The Present Case Are In The Nature Of Debate

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 250

ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru on 13.11.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] has erred on facts and in law in disposing the appeal of the appellant by passing an ex-parte order ... added back on account of disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC which was subsequently migrated to the Addl/JCIT(A), Panaji. Before the ld. JCIT(A), it was submitted that the ADIT, CPC had erred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. Kns Memorial, Vikas Khand-II, Gomti Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 572/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR

Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, dated 18.07.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271DA vide his order dated

Ram Nath Jaiswal, Faizabad vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while the Stay application is held to be allowed

ITA 13/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.11.2023 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the National

Joint Commisioner of Income Tax(OSD) Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Chemical Works Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

PRESIDENT : This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 07.11.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Rajvi Enterprise Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 314/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Narpat Parihar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Adani Infrastructure Management Services Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Nafac Delhi, Present Jurisdiction Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 300/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 40A(2)(b)

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 12/12/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ! / The Appellant 1. ""थ! / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु$ / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु$ अपील 4. ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद 5. , , /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Manubhai Shamrav Kharat, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 271BSection 44A

pronouncement : 26-02-2026 आदेश/ORDER This is an appeal filed against the order dated 30-05-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2022-23. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the learned CIT(Appeal)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

Sinhuj Dudh Utpadak Sah Man Limited, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2561/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Smt. Urvashi Mandhan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 29.01.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year

Alpa Harshadbhai Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 30-09- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2023-24. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The learned ADDL./JCIAT(APPEALS) has grievously erred both

Zala Hardattsinh, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(2) Present Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2134/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 16-05-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has grievously erred

Shaileshkumar Dahyabhai Patel, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(2) (Now DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2131/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta & Shri Bhavin Marfatia, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(b)Section 6Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Invalid Order 1. The learned

Maqsudali Makbulali Saiyed, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2077/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 25-03- 2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Ld. A.O., has erred in making addition

Dr Shivani Bhatt Charitable Foundation, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-Exmp, Vadodara

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

ITA 1989/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 250

/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 25-08-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2022-23. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “We, Dr. Shivani Bhatt Charitable Foundation (hereinafter referred as "the Appellant

Rachna Dipesh Laddha, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(2) Vadodara Gujarat, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1922/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts

Incometax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Tanmai Raj Gopal, Ahmedabad

ITA 1887/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 234DSection 250Section 6(1)(a)

Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 07.08.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year