“NFAC”

Trustees of Jnana Vistarak Sangh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Sompalsingh J. Kataria, Thane vs. Itd, NFAC, Delhi, Thane

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

disallowing his sec.54 deduction claim amounting to Rs.1,69,47,407/- in the course of assessment dated 26.03.2022; as upheld in CIT(A)-NFAC’s detailed discussion; learned counsel invited our attention to the latter’s findings to this effect as under : “Findings 6. I have considered the facts

ACIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Chandiwala Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

appeal by the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee preferred I.T.A. No. 219/Mum/2024 C.O. No. 45/Mum/2024 2 against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dt. 14/11/2023, pertaining to AY 2020-21. 2. The appeal and cross-objection are disposed by this common order for the sake of convenience

Hemantkumar Sumermal Bhansali, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 15(3), Matru Mandir Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Hemantkumar Vs. Commissioner of Sumermal Bhansali Income Tax Appeal Prop. Of Pushpak Steel (NFAC) & Engineering Co.6/B, ACIT-15(3) 52/54 Matru Mandir 1st Floor, C.P. Tank Mumbai Mumbai-400004 PAN/GIR No.AABPB6379C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue ... AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 30/03/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(1) for the A.Y.2009-10. 2. The only ground raised by the assessee is confirming the addition of Rs.21,28,985/- made

Neobags Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1854/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)[for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 16.02.2024.The impugned

Suhas Pandurang Mohite, Palghar vs. ITO, Ward--1, Palghar

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on facts which pertain to some other assessee. 4. We have carefully perused the order of the NFAC. We find that the NFAC has dismissed the appeal in limine but at the same time we I.T.A. No. 1798/Mum/2024 2 find that the facts

Expertease (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Renu Jauhrii Ta. No. 1594/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2009-10) Expertease (India) Pvt Ltd, Vs Ito (Tds)-1(2)(2) 3102, Gokul Concorde, Roomno. 805, 8Th Flr, Thakur Village, Smt K G Mittal Kandivali (East), Ayurvedic Hospitalbldg Mumbai-400101. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. Pan/Gir No. Aabce2693P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jotwani. Ar Respondent By Shri P.D Chougule. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 59 Mumbai Passed U/Sec 201(1)/201(1A) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Brought To The Knowledge Of The Bench That, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Electronically On 07.12.2018 & Emphasized On Facts & Relied On The Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assesse Company As Under:

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Maker Tower F Premises Co-Op. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Areca Trust v/s The CIT(A), NFAC, in ITA no.433/Bang/2023, vide order dated 26/07/2023, held that unless the issue has been discussed and adjudicated in the regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, merger of intimation issued under

Kavita Milind Rananaware, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year2013-14, date of orders for both the years is 19.02.2024.The impugned ordersare emanated from the orders of the NFAC, Delhi (in short, ‘the A.O.’). Both the orders are passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B ... limitation. The observation of the Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as below: - “4.1 Decision: - I have examined the observation made and recorded by the NFAC in the impugned penalty order. The NFAC, has alleged that the appeal is of non- cooperative attitude and has failed to cooperate with the department

Kavita Milind Rananaware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year2013-14, date of orders for both the years is 19.02.2024.The impugned ordersare emanated from the orders of the NFAC, Delhi (in short, ‘the A.O.’). Both the orders are passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B ... limitation. The observation of the Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as below: - “4.1 Decision: - I have examined the observation made and recorded by the NFAC in the impugned penalty order. The NFAC, has alleged that the appeal is of non- cooperative attitude and has failed to cooperate with the department

Sandeep Ramesh Keni, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Sandeep Ramesh Keni The Commissioner Of B-Wing, Room No. 24, Income Tax Panvel Plaza, Government Of India Behind S. K. Bajaj Vs. Ministry Of Finance, Showroom, Income Tax Department, Panvel, National Faceless Appeal Raigad-410206. Centre, Pan: Avapk7931R Delhi- 110011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Mayank Bagla, Adv. A/W Shri. Hiten Lala, Adv. : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R. Revenue By : 24 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Hearing : 25 . 07 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in recording that ample opportunities have been provided to the Appellant to offer submissions before the NFAC (AO), despite no knowledge notice being served upon Appellant herein. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the nature ... Rupees and Sixty Paise), which is below the minimum taxable limit. 10. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the NFAC (AO) 4 Sandeep Ramesh Keni did not accord any hearing to the Appellant despite the Appellant making express request for the same. 11. The impugned

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A)56, Mumbai/10106/2013–14 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the 2 Rita Hemchand

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kundan Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Reopening U/S.147 On The Following Grounds:- “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Of The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of Reassessment, Which Is Time-Barred Considering The Provisions Of The Act. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Reassessment Made Is Time Barred & Therefore The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Additional Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. The Assessee Respectfully Submits That The Issue Of Statutory Notices /S. 148 Of The Act By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Is In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act & The Notifications Issued Thereunder. Accordingly The Reassessment In Pursuance Of Such Notices Is Invalid & Deserves To Be Quashed.”

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 26/10/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for A.Y.2014-15. 2. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the addition of Rs.6 ... validity of reopening u/s.147 on the following grounds:- “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment, which is time-barred considering the provisions

Ramesh Rikhavdas Shah, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24 (3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

BASKARAN, A.M : Both these appeals filed by the assessee challenging the order(s) passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (in short „Ld.CIT(A)‟) are related to AYs. 2015-16 and 2014-15. Since the issue in these appeals is identical in nature, both these appeals

Ramesh Rikhavdas Shah, HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24 (3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

BASKARAN, A.M : Both these appeals filed by the assessee challenging the order(s) passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (in short „Ld.CIT(A)‟) are related to AYs. 2015-16 and 2014-15. Since the issue in these appeals is identical in nature, both these appeals