“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

Uttam Krishnani, Rewa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni

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

ITA 182/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

I.T.A. No.182/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee, against the various orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed separately on 29.08.2024, dismissing the appeals of the assessee against the assessment order passed under section ... Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment and penalty orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC observed that there was a huge delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee and the appeal against the order

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

Anil Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ITO- Ward-1, Rewa

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

ITA 160/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 253(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

I.T.A. No.160/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Suhane News Agencies, Jabalpur vs. Incometax Officer Ward 1(1), Jabalpur

ITA 144/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

I.T.A. No.144/JAB/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH

Parmanand Nagwani, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Katni

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

ITA 115/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250(6)

I.T.A. No.113, 114 & 115/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2013-14, 15-16 & 16-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR

Parmanand Nagwani, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Katni

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

ITA 114/JAB/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250(6)

I.T.A. No.113, 114 & 115/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2013-14, 15-16 & 16-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR

Parmanand Nagwani, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Katni

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

ITA 113/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250(6)

I.T.A. No.113, 114 & 115/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2013-14, 15-16 & 16-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR

M/S. B. M. L. Welfare Trust, Sringar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- ( Exemptions), Jammu

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

ITA 44/ASR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 20.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed

Sainik Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd, Jammu and Kashmir vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir

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

ITA 701/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 14.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward-1(1), Jammu ... purpose. ITA No. 406/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16: 16. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 14.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the penalty imposed

Mohammad Hanifa, Chumik, Baroo, Kargil (Ladakh) vs. Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

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

ITA 678/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Wani, C.A

Section 10(26)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 18.10.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC passed

Herkuldip Singh, Vpo Butari vs. ITO Ward 4(2) Asr, Amritsar

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

ITA 673/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Bhatia, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 250

Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 15.10.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-4(2), Amritsar

Sainik Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Sainik Colony vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward-1, Jammu

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

ITA 406/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 24Section 250Section 69

Chetanaya Traders, Jalandhar vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 36/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Jain, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40ASection 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 04.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-1(1), Jalandhar

Gajendra Kumar, Mahoba vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (2)(4 ), Banda

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

ITA 94/ALLD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 221(1)Section 250Section 69A

same to tax under section 115BBE @ 60%. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Before the NFAC, it was submitted that the assessee appointed Advocate Sh. D.K. Gupta, as a legal Counsellor to represent him in the connection with

Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(5), Banda

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

ITA 111/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-44, Avas Vikash Colony Head Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Post-Banda 210001, U.P. Pan:Agrpt7458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mamta Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Passed On 22.12.2019, Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “A. Because The Appellant Authority Has Failed To Provide Fair, Real & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard, In The Form-35 Petitioner Clearly Mentioned That Notices/Communication May Not Be Send On Email Mode. In This Case No Notice For Hearing Has Been Issued In Physical Mode. B. Because The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As Commissioner (Appeals) Has Passed The Order Based On Incorrect Appreciation Of Facts, Leading To An Erroneous Conclusion. C. Because Assessment Order As Well As Order-In-Appeal Has Been Passed In Ex-Parte Manner Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. D. Because The Findings Recorded In The Impugned Order Are Contrary To The Material Evidence Available On Record, Resulting In A Flawed Assessment. E. Because Appellant Was Not Aware About The Issuance Of Notices At The Proceedings Stage Because He Got Registered Himself After Order Passed By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: [ This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed against the orders

Tanuja Chhatoi, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 223/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata ) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.223/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Tanuja Chhatoi, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Balabhadrapur, Chhatra Bazar, Arunodaya Market, Cuttack Pan No. :Afjpc 8959 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 44ASection 69A

Duvvuru RL Reddy, VP : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 04.03.2025 for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

Deputy Commiossioner of Incometax, Jamnagar vs. Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68Section 69C

assessment year 2022-23, are directed against the common order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide order dated 26-12-2024, which in turn arise out of common assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 143(3) read with ... 08/RJT/2025 3 3. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds: 1. The order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act date 26.12.2024 allowing partial-relief of Rs. 5,18,82,394/- against the order passed

Kosuru Krishnaveni, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 414/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 414/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Kosuru Krishnaveni V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(3) Flat No. 401, Jeevan Visakha Apartments Income Tax Office Mntc Colony, Seethammadhara Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam – 530013 Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aotpd2598D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल

Voodimudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Kotipalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 369/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 369/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Voodimudi Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit Society Limited Rajahmundry K. Gangavaram, Kotipalli-533306 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaaav8292Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of CIT (Appeals) NFAC is arbitrary and unjust. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction US 80P(2)(a)(iii) in respect of commission earned from Andhra