“NFAC”

Farid Abdul Rehman Thanawalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethfarid Abdul Vs Income Tax Officer, Rehmanthanawalla Ward 22(1)(1) 21/A, Queens Park, Juhu Piramal Chamber, Tara Road, Santacruz(W), Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No:Acapt3922G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the learned Commissioner of Income- Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre[in short, ‘CIT(A), NFAC’], Delhi, dated 11.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred

Sanjay Kumar Mahadeo Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Prusethsanjaykumar Mahadeo Patil, Flat No.502, A Wing, Shivparvati Chs Ltd., Rsa 54, Mhada Layout, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400067 ............... Appellant Pan: Adlpp0237C

delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit, submitting as follows: – “1. The Petitioner has received the impugned order passed by the CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 18th February, 2025 on the same day and hence he was required to file ... assessee and proceed to decide the same. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, without deciding the matter on merits and without passing a reasoned, speaking

Ferrostonecrete, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: The Final Hearing & All The Above Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Summarily Dismissing The Appeal Without Addressing The Disallowance On The Merits. 3. We Have Heard The Counsels For Both The Parties, Perused The Material Placed On Record, Judgments Cited Before Us & Also The Orders Passed By The Revenue Authorities. From The Records, We Noticed That Although Assessee Had Filed Appeal, But On The Appeal Module, 3

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal summarily without addressing the dis-allowances on merits of the appeal. The Appellant therefore prays that the appeal ... decide on the merits. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 85,90,297/- alleged non genuine purchases u/s. 69. The Appellant therefore prays that the impugned disallowance

Ferrostonecrete, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal summarily without addressing the dis-allowances on merits of the appeal. The Appellant therefore prays that the appeal ... decide on the merits. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 85,90,297/- alleged non genuine purchases u/s. 69. The Appellant therefore prays that the impugned disallowance

Blossom Charitable Trust, Thane vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Radheshyam Soni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Jm & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am Mr. Radheshyam Soni, Income Tax Officer – 2(1), Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, H/003, Sonam Avenue, Golden Nest Phase-1, Vs. Road No.16Z, Mira Road, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane – 401 107 Thane (West) Pan: Awvps8847C (Appellant) (Respondent) :

filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘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

Tara Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Office No A vs. Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokartara Hospitality Private Vs Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1), Limited Mumbai Office No.A-112 Plot No.53, Room No.456 Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-15Cbd Belapur Navi M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400614 Pan:Aaect7774K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A), Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2018-19, Date Of Order 19.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The National Eassessment Centre, Delhi (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 23.04.2021. 2 Tara Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. 2. We Heard The Rival Submission & Considered The Documents Available In The Record. The Assessee Company Filed The Return By Admitting Loss Amount Of Rs.6,85,303/-. The Assessment Proceeding Was Initiated. During The Assessment Ld. Ao Found In Column No.31(A) Of The Audit Report For Form No.3Cd That Assessee Has Taken Loan From Three Different Parties Amount Of Rs.1,45,75,891/-. But Finally The Assessment Order Was Passed Ex Parte & The Unsecured Loan Amount Of Rs.1,45,75,891/- Was Added Back As Unexplained Cash Credit U/Sec. 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Order Ex Parte & Uphold The Impugned Assessment Order. Being Aggrieved Assessee Filed An Appeal Before Us.

pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A), order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year

Elegant Marbles and Grani Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarelegant Marbles & Grani Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Industries Limited Tax, Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Aayakar Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Parel, Mumbai-400013 400020 Pan: Aaace1584C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shreyash Shah, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 06.11.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle.-6(2)(2), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Date Of Order 12.12.2019. 2

pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year

Niket Sohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward20(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am Mr. Niket Sohanlal Jain, Officer-In-Charge (Nfac), Delhi Room No.35, Ahmed Sailor Building Current Jurisdiction: No.5, Income Tax Officer, Sadanad Jadhav Marg, Vs. Ward 20(2)(1), Opp. Dakre Guruji Garden, Mumbai – 400012 Naigaon, Mumbai – 400 014 Pan: Badpj0703R (Appellant) : (Respondent)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, JM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, AM Mr. Niket Sohanlal Jain, Officer-in-charge (NFAC), Delhi Room No.35, Ahmed Sailor Building Current Jurisdiction: No.5, Income Tax Officer, Sadanad Jadhav Marg, Vs. Ward 20(2)(1), Opp. Dakre Guruji Garden, Mumbai ... filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘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

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Anthonette Joaquim Anthony, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

ITA No.6531/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT