“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

Ramesh Babulal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 853/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.853/Ahd/2025 & 854/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Ramesh Babulal Patel The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Gayatri Industries, Ward-1 V/S. 271, Gidc Phase-2 Mehsana – 384 002 Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahhpp 4902 E (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 68

proceeding u/s 148 of the Act and consequent addition u/s 68 of the Act in case of appellant are invalid. 2. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 419,11,09,859/- made in hands of appellant by the AO (NFAC ... Gujarat, India, having PA No. AHHPP4902E do hereby solemnly declare and state as under: 1. That, for A.Y. 2017-18, Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) passed an order u/s 250 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 on 24-08-2024 dismissing the appeal filed by me against the Assessment Order passed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur vs. Neesarga Tractors, Palanpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 686/AHD/2025[2017]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 21.01.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year

Ranjit Dharamsinhbhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 468/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 250

against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 09.07.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year

Pleasure Agro Private Limited (As A Successor - in Interest of Erstwhile Vishwaraja Properties and Consultancies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 944/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 250

instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 are directed against the separate orders dated 20.12.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Orders dated 30.05.2023 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s147

Pleasure Agro Private Limited (As A Successor - in Interest of Erstwhile Vishwaraja Properties and Consultancies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 943/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 250

Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade, Pune vs. Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 687/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ravi PahlaniFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 144Section 250

captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 16.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 19.03.2015 passed u/s.144

Cian Agro Industries & Infrastructure Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT (It) Circle 1, Pune

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

ITA 676/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133(6)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Mrs. Meher Pheroz Pudumjee, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 638/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. N. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. In the fact and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the disallowance of brought forward capital loss of Rs.2,14,51,895/- for AY 2016-17 made by CPC on the grounds ... filed within the due date. 2. In the fact and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in not 2 appreciating the submissions made in respect of the application for rectification of appellate order u/s 250 dated 18/01/2024 and consequently rejecting

K D Choudhari, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 328/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.328/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 K. D. Choudhari, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Office No.36, 37, 38, Krushi Udog Bhavan, Gultekdi, Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Market Yard, Pune- 411037. Pan : Aanfk0084B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing An Order U/S 250 Dated 19/12/2024, By Observing That Appellant Has Not Responded To Notices Issued In Appellate Proceedings, Thereby Completely Ignoring The Detailed Submissions Made In Response To Last Three Notices, That To On Or Before Due Date Mentioned, Such Casual Approach In The Appellate Proceeding Is Unacceptable Because, Ld. Cit(A) Ought

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68

written submissions along with supporting documents before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however the above said submission remained to be considered by Ld. CIT(A)NFAC. Accordingly, we find force in the arguments of Ld. counsel of the assessee that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Manoj Ramchandra Jadhav, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 1728/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 18.12.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B

Ajeenckya Fattesing Jagtap, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1645/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ajay RanderFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 143(3)Section 250

captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 16.10.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 08.02.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s143

Prithiviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sangli

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

ITA 1607/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 30.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 22.04.2021 passed u/s.144 r.w.s144B

Pradip Popatlal Katariya, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

ITA 1496/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Bhandari, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Vijay Shambhuling Popade, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Latur, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1198/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha, Addl.CIT

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

ITO, Pune vs. Thegovernmentserventsmaharastraco-Op Credit Society Limited Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 714/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

ITO, Pune vs. The Government Servents Maharashtra Co-Op Credit Society Limited Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 713/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

Nahid Khatoon, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1135/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Nahid Khatoon (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 27.05.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1135/Hyd/2025

Vriddhi Power Private Limited, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 182/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.182/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Vriddhi Power Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata H.No.240, Ambazari Layout, Shankar Nagar So, Nagpur(Urban), Nagpur-440010 Pan No. :Aaecm 7218 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Though Challenged The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), However, During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Issue Involved In This Appeal Requires To Remit Back To The File Of Ld.Ao As The Assessee Was Unable To File The Relevant Documents In Support Of Its Claim As There Was No Proper Compliance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Submitted An Affidavit Stating Therein That No Notice Has Been Received By The Assessee In Regard To Passing Of The Assessment Order. It Has Also Been Requested By The Ld. Ar That If The Issue Is Restored To The File Of Ld.Ao, Then Any Notice Would Be Issued In Relation To The Assessment

For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Kumar Choubey, JM : The assessee has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 31.12.2024, passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2012-2013. 2. In this appeal, the assessee though challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed

Jai Matadi Enterprise, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

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 ... Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069. 2. ITO, Ward-42(1), Murshidabad. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Chanda Shrawan Khetawat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1159/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishravs Ito, Ward-28(1), Kolkata Chanda Shrawan Khetawat, 4F, Floor Castle, 74 Lake District Narkel Danga Main Road, Phoolbagan, Kolkata-700054 Pan No. :Agxpk 6023 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Fca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 30.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. Archana Gupta, Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue 3. An Adjournment Application Has Been Filed By Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Seeking Adjournment On The Ground, Which Is Not Plausible, Therefore, The Adjournment Application Is Rejected & Appeal Is Heard Finally. 4. A Perusal Of The Facts Of The Present Shows That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Is An Ex-Parte Order. Ld. Ar Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Restored To The File Of Ld.Cit(A) As The Relevant Documents Are Required To Be Examined, However, The Ld.Ar Has 2

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR

George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.03.2025 for the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. Shri Abhishek Bansal, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Archana Gupta, Sr.DR