“NFAC”

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

view the facts inter-alia that the assessee has filed the appeals offline before the Ld. CIT(A) which was subsequently transferred to NFAC of which no notice is claimed to have been received by the assessee; that due to shift of the hearing of the appeal by the first ... appellate authority from physical hearing to NFAC few technical glitches have occurred causing disadvantage to the litigant by not receiving the notices issued by the first appellate authority; that in form No.35 the assessee has also opted for receiving the notices/communication through physical mode but notices have been stated

Vibha Subhash Singh, Kharghar vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvibha Subhash Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer- 1601 Viswahans, Sector Nfac, Ward 2(2) 35D, Near Bank Of India, Mohan Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kharghar – 410210 Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Kalyan - 421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Apsps5258R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajeev Waglay Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 07.08.2023 For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 24,97,500 U/S. 69 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Neither Tendered The Income Tax Return Nor The Details Of Investment As Stated By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Had Filed The Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S. 148 On 21.9.2021 Under Acknowledgment No. 550248700210921 & That This Return Was Very Much Available On Income Tax Portal. Ii. Confirming The Above Addition Without Appreciating The Fact That When The Appellant Had Invested Of Rs. 14,00,000 Only In The Property, Higher Value Could Not Have Been Attributed To The Appellant Without Any Basis.

Vibha Subhash Singh Vs. ITO, NFAC, Ward 2(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vibha Subhash Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer- 1601 Viswahans, Sector NFAC, Ward 2(2) 35D, Near Bank of India, Mohan Plaza ... Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 07.08.2023 for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “i. Confirming the addition of Rs. 24,97,500 u/s. 69 of Income

Apurva Paresh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Apurva Paresh Shah Ito 32 (1)(2) A 501, Nirmal Sagar, Mumbai Vs. Devidas Road, Borivali (W), Mumba-400 092 Pan/Gir No. Amtps 9910 Q (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

been 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) 2014-15. 2. As there

Avron Chemicals Pvt Ltd., Mumbai City vs. ITO-6(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Avron Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer – 6(1)(4) 5Th Floor, Jash Chambers, Room No. 508, 5Th Floor, Vs. Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aahca5663R (Assessee) : (Respondent)

been 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) 2012-13. 2. The assessee

M/S. Muniraj Synthetics (I) Pvt Ltd. Company, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter-alia that :- 2 M/s. Muniraj ... Synthetics (I) Pvt. Ltd. “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte holding that Appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal thereby dismissing the same without adjudicating on merits without appreciating that the Appellant is aggrieved by the additions made and interested

Lalit Ratanchand Jagawat, Mumbai vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-23(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 30/06/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee ... circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 30/06/2023 passed under section 250 by the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC, Delhi is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961, and unlawful due to :- (a) The order under section 250 was passed

K P Sanghvi & Sons LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm K P Sanghvi & Sons Llp Asst. Cit-19(2) 12A-03, Crescenzo, C-38/39, Mumbai Vs. G – Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 8390 F (Assessee) (Respondent) :

been 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) 2011-12. 2. The solitary

Simcorp Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM STaHX

Income Tax Officer-27(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Chandrakant Jasani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer-27(1)(1) V. Bharat Chandrakant Jasan R.No. 406, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 A 402, Sai Darshan, Garden Lane Vashi Railway Station Complex Sanghani Estate, Ghatkopar (E) Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Afcpj7029K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Shashank Mehta Department Represented By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld.CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,32. 61,423/- on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the facts that the assessee had failed ... also failed to furnish corroborative evidence in support of the claim. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,32,61,423 as the assessee shown GP rate more than 12.5% of such bogus purchases without

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Palchin Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

DCIT 22(1), Mumbai vs. Creations by Shanagar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2476/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-22(1) बिधम/ Creations By Shanagar Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, 34, Auro Villa, St. Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Andrews Rd Santaxruz Mumbai-400012. (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc7957L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Milin Bakhai Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 16.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition In Respect Of Commission Paid To Foreign Agent Amounting To Rs.1,61,90,101/-.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai

order dated 28.03.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC [in short 'CIT(A)'] for AY 2017-18. 2. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is against the Ld. CIT(A)'s action of deleting

Diversey India Hygiene Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed

Floor, Ackruti Centre Point, MIDC Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093 [PAN: AABCC1597Q] Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi Respondent ITA No. 1283/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 535, 5" Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ... Assessment Year 2017-18 arise from the order, dated 14/02/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 07/06/2021

ACIT -14 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Appeals and Cross Objections filed by the Revenue Department and the Assessee are allowed in part and full respectively for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Acit, Circle- 14(1)(2) M/S. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1802/ 1901, G-Block, Road, Mumbai- 400020 Vs Capital Plot No. C-70, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai- 400051

Revenue Department and the Assessee have been preferred, against the orders even dated 31.01.2020, impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {in short Ld. Commissioner’} u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short