“NFAC”

Narendra Sohanrajji Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(2)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

आदेश / ORDER Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 21.07.2023 for A.Y. 2011-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: 1. Hence it is against the provision

Angel Jewellery, Mumbai vs. ITO 42 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyangel Jewellery Vs. Ito-42(1)(1) 4, Akurli Industrial Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Estate, Akurli Road, Bandra East, Kandivali East, 400051 Mumbai-400101 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifa7184P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : K.A.Vaidyalingan Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 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 16.08.2023 For A.Y. 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant In Unnecessary Hurry & Without Giving A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Out Of Three Dates Given Earlier, On Two Occasions It Was Impossible To Respond Due To Covid-19 & Consequent Lockdown & On The Last Occasion, The Ca Who Was Handling This Old Matter Was Indisposed. 3. In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Entire Reassessment Is Bad In Law & Nullity As The Learned Ao Erred In Completing The Reassessment U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act Without Issuing A Valid Notices U/S. 148 & 143 (2) Of The Act. 4. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.24.12,640/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S. 69C On Account Of Alleged Unsecured Loan

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 16.08.2023 for A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant

Mahendra Ravindra Salunkhe, Panvel City vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharymahendra Ravindra Vs. Income Tax Officer Salunkhe, A-202, 35(2)(3) Swarganaga Chs Ltd, Plot Kautilya Bhavan No.62, Sector 18, Bkc, 400050 Kamothe, Panvel City, Mumbai Raigarh- 410209 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Bkfps6678L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 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 11.07.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In The Appeal The Assessee Had Stated That He Had The Total Income Of Rs.2,26,652. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Had Given The Assessee An Opportunity To Hear, Firstly In The Year Of 2021 However Due To Second Wave Of Covid 19 He Was Not Able To Attend The Same As During The Concerned Period Survival Was The Only Challenge. Later, The Concerned Assessee In The Year 2023 Was Diagnosed With Medical Illness Which Impaired His Physical Inability & Mental Stability To Attend The Hearings. The Order Was Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals By Passing An Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11/07/2023. The Notices Received From The Cit Appeals Did Not Contain Any Specific Information To Be Submitted Due To Which The Assessee Was Under The Presumption That They Will Ask Additional Questions In The Next Notice. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete The Said Ground Of Appeal.”

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 11.07.2023 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. In the appeal the assessee had stated that he had the total income

Subhas Shibukumar Bose, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharysubhas Shibukumar Bose Vs. Ito, Ward-28(3)(1) Raj Villa, Room No. 2, Vashi Railway Station Sector 18A, Plot No. 123, Building, Vashi, Nerul Node-Iii, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400706 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Ahtpb7474M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajesh Shah Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2023

Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 23.03.2023 for A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The appellant request that delay in filing of an appeal is condoned ... consultant of the assessee was provided for the purpose of communication of the appeal order to be passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) NFAC has passed the appeal order u/s 250 of the Act on 28.03.2023, however, tax consultant has not informed the assessee about

Business Combine Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 07/08/2023 passed by NFAC Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2010-11. 2. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has raised the following grounds:- 2 M/s. Business Combine

Shalin Star, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

present appeal the Assessee has challenged the 1. order, dated 17/08/2023, 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) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee

Parita B. Shah Legal Heir of Nirmalaben Arun Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2) (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Us Ld. Counsel Submitted That The Notices Sent By The Ld. Cit(A) Through E-Mail Was Not Received As The E-Mail Was Given By The Earlier Chartered Accountant Who Had Not Informed The Assessee. Accordingly, In The Interest Of Justice He Submitted That The Matter Should Be Restored Back To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Dr Also Does Not Have Any Objection When The Matter Is Remanded Back To The File Of The First Appellate Authority.

AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Parita B Shah, Vs. National Faceless Legal heir of Smt. Assessment Centre Nirmalaben Arun Shah (NFAC), Delhi B/22, 5th Floor Amar Niwas Prathana Samaj Mumbai – 400 004 PAN/GIR No.AAMPS9735N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jitendra Singh Revenue by Smt. R. Mohan ... AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 07/07/2023 passed by NFAC Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 for the A.Y.2011-12. 2. In various grounds of appeal assessee has challenged the appellate order on the ground that same

Leelaben Kantilal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Leelaben Kantilal Parekh ITA no.2926/Mum./2023 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the addition u/s 69C of Rs.10,29,788/- on account of Purchases made from M/s International Trade Agency, without appreciating that said ... which are accepted to be genuine. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the addition with respect to the purchase made from M/s International Trade Agency only because a section 133(6) notice

Ravindra K Reshamwala, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the Notice issued u/s.148 without obtaining requisite satisfaction as required u/s.151(2) of the Income Tax Act and therefore the said Notice ... Ravindra K. Reshamwala ITA no.2925/Mum./2023 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the action of assessing officer i,e. not disposing of the complete objections raised by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings