“NFAC”

Sandeep S. Mittal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2013-2014, arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1060913571(1) dated 14.02.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... disallowing his sec.54 deduction claim amounting to Rs.3,58,68,411/- in the course of assessment dated 15.12.2015; we note that the CIT(A)-NFAC’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under : 3 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 4 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 5 ITA.No.1822/Mum./2024 3. Learned counsel vehemently

Saffron Inc, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2012-2013, arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061994744 (1) dated 05.03.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals) (NFAC) erred in passing an order u/s 250 r.w.s 254 confirming the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer without giving an adequate opportunity of being

Rohan Bloodstock Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2016-2017, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1060723281(1) dated 09.02.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. We next note with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the CIT(A)-NFAC has recorded the assessee’s continuous non-compliance for upholding the Assessing Officer’s impugned action making sec.69C unexplained expenditure addition of Rs.4,05,23,633/- and disallowance

Sidharth Satpal Saigal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. 28(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2015-2016, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060331380(1) dated 31.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. It emerges t the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has rejected the assessee’s lower appeal “in limine” for want of payment ofadvanc tax whereby invoking

Parin Engineers, Mumbai vs. Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

impugned order dated 14.02.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2014— 15-/10165110 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 Assessment year ... appeal on the following grounds: “1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings ITA no. 1725/MUM/2024 Parin Engineers were bad in law as the Assessing Officer did not provide reasons

M/S Special Steels & Alloys, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 are directed against different orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. Since common issue and identical facts involved in these appeals therefore these people are adjudicated together

M/S Special Steels & Alloys, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 are directed against different orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. Since common issue and identical facts involved in these appeals therefore these people are adjudicated together

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Ltu 2, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of India, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year ssessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

Nidhi Prashant Asrani, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 15/02/2023 by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case

Shri Rugnath Khodidas Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 10/01/2024, by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the appeal has been dismissed

M/S Mahalaxmi Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant during the appellate proceeding vide letter dt. 12/09/2023 requested a video conference, however, NFAC (A) without considering the same passed the order on 12/02/2024. Therefore, the appellant was prevented from submitting a claim for the income earned from the rental income ... appellate proceeding vide letter dt. 12/09/2023 as Annexure D has submitted documentary evidence as separate agreement letters with each tenant, however, NFAC (A) without looking into these documents passed the order. Hence, the order passed by the NFAC is contrary to the facts mentioned in the order. Not allowing normal

Thiruvengadathan Pakshi Rajan, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 35(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Pronouncement: : 11/07/2024 11/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 26/01/2024, by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

Raniben Khimji Patel, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1043444536(1), dated 15.06.2022 passed against the assessment order by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(3), Mumbai

M/S Gryffin Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Gryffin Advisory Services Dcit, Circle-2, Thane Pvt. Ltd. E-805, Sonam Srivilas, Phase Vs. Xv, New Golder Nest, Bhayander €, Thane – 401105, Maharashtra.

assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. 2. Fact in brief is that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1 (2), Mumbai, Piramal Chembers

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Assessing Officer Through Mr. Manish H Mehta, Ca & Filed Details Called For. After Examining The Response Of The Assessee, Learned Assessing Officer Added In The Assessee’S Income For A.Y. 2012-13, Unspent Accumulation Of Rs. 1,45,01,730/- Of Earlier Years For A.Y. 2006-07. Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Were Also Initiated Against The Assessee For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars & For Concealment Of Income. Aggrieved By Assessment Order, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S Appeal For Non Prosecution.

impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 1, Mumbai/11892/2015-16 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 Assessment year

Income-Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Ankit Umakant Agarwal, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Praful Devji Galia, Mumbai vs. Rajnish K Sinha, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

order dated 19.10.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 46, Mumbai/10059/2017–18, 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 Assessment year