“NFAC”

Suresh Bachubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuresh Bachubhai Shah Vs. Dcit(Cpc) 102, Emp-41, Evershine Bengaluru Thakur Village Kandivali (East) Mumabi-400 101 Pan/Gir No. : Atkps5161K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dharmesh Shah Andshri.Dhaval Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Hoshang. B. Irani. Dr

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s 143(1) r.w.s154 and 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2. ITA No.2361/Mum/2021 Suresh

Pritesh Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD, 27(2) (5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.09.2021 for the assessment year 2009-10 against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Bhavna Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -Cir- Panvel, Panvel

The appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

assessee company’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2011-12 on the grounds inter alia that

Shreerang Prakash Chikhalikar, Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshreerang Prakash Vs. Ito – 1(3)(2) Chikhalikar,501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Sugan, Cumballa Hill Bhavan, M.K.Road, Road, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400036. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acdpc3706G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dm Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Anoop Hiwase.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)- National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s 143(3) and 250 of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances

Arcadia Travels Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Neac, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Arcadia Travels Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income A7, Sitaram Building, Dr. D.N. Tax, Neac, Delhi Road, Crawford Market, Mumbai 400 001 Pan : Aaaca6035C Appellant Respondent

This appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20/09/2021 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The Solitary ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:- “The learned Commissioner

Lake View Hospitality, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CPC, ITO 26(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

appeal, assessee has raised following grounds: Lake View Hospitality ITA No. 213/Mum./2022 “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld CIT(A)] erred in passing the order dated 09.12.2021 upholding the assessment under dated 28.02.2019 passed Intimation under section

Asstt. CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-32(1), Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. Sunitaben Shantilal Patel, 1903, Siddhivinayak Tower Chs Ltd. Link Road, Sudhendra Nagar, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Pan: Afhpp0267N ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Jigaar Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Vide Order Dated 13.08.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Accounts & Reducing The Turnover To Rs. 9,50,35,865/- Against Turnover Of Rs. 12,05,07,568/- As Disclosed In The Audited Books Of Accounts.” 2. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Eliminating He Profits To 8% Of The Reduced Turnover Against Addition Of Rs. 8,49,87,993/- Made By The Ao.”

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Bates India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

DCIT, Circle -1, Thane vs. M/S Accura Pharmaquip Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.11.2021 for AY 2018-19. 2. The main grievance of the revenue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in allowing the claim

Jagdamba Service Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

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

Jagdamba Service बिधम/ CIT(A) National Faceless Solution Pvt. Ltd. Appeal Centre (NFA) Vs. 1005, Corporate Annexe ITO-1 Near Udyog Bhavan, Pr. CCIT (NFAC), Room Sonawala Lane, Goregaon- No.401, 4th Floor, C- (E), Mumbai-400063. Block, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCJ0686K (अपीलार्थी ... VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 19.03.2022 for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action

Natural Gowers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

above discussions, perhaps the right course of action for us would prima facie seem that the matter may be sent back to the NFAC stage for taking a call on ITA No.: 848/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 3 of 4 whether or not to permit the assessee to make

M/S. Alag Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The CIT (A) -22, Mumbai

In the result ground number 5 and 6 of the appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Cit(A)-22 Room No. 513, M/S Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. 5T Floor, Earnest House, Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (East), Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400 055 Mumbai-400 021

companies of one Accommodation entry Provider Mr. Mukesh Chokshi, for assessment year 2004-05 against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (The Learned CIT (A)) dated 29/11/2021 raising following grounds of appeal:- M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 “1. The learned Assessing Officer

Neev Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

faceless appeal and assessment as per the order of Mahadev Cold Storage 127 taxmann.com 722 (Agra) I which it is held that, "Though Centralized NFAC has been created by Notification by CBDT, it should be ensured that whenever any appellate order is passed by NFAC as per Notification either ... draft or Final appellate order, then decision of Jurisdictional High Court having jurisdiction over Assessing Officer should be followed and applied by NFAC. Merely because there is some conflicting decision of non-jurisdictional High Court, relief should not be refused to assessee. e) By disregarding the fact that the amendment

Fortive India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is partly allowed

present appeal arises out of the order, dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟) in appeal [ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1038521796(1)] filed by the Appellant/Assessee against the intimation/order, dated 16.10.2019, passed under Section

DCIT- Cir. 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Pramod Kumar, VP: These cross-appeals are directed against the order dated 24th November 2021, passed 1. by the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) in the matter of order giving effect (OGE), to the order dated 11th July 018 passed by a coordinate bench, vide order dated 31st December ... assessee is as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not granting an opportunity to the appellant bank to present the case through the video conferencing as specified under the Faceless Appeals Scheme

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Pramod Kumar, VP: These cross-appeals are directed against the order dated 24th November 2021, passed 1. by the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) in the matter of order giving effect (OGE), to the order dated 11th July 018 passed by a coordinate bench, vide order dated 31st December ... assessee is as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not granting an opportunity to the appellant bank to present the case through the video conferencing as specified under the Faceless Appeals Scheme

M/S. Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ (NFAC), Delhi dated 16.03.2022 for assessment year 2019-20. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action

M/S. Camoron Finance & Investments, Mumbai-400057 vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

above discussions, perhaps the right course of action for us would prima facie seem that the matter may be sent back to the NFAC stage for taking a call on whether or not to permit the assessee to make submissions through the video conferencing- as was done

Hinduja Global Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Hinduja Global Soluations Limited ……………...………… Appellant Hinduja House, 171, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 [PAN: AAACT1763A] Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi ………………….…… Respondent Appearances by: None for the appellant Dr. Mahesh Akhade for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 30/06/2022 Date of pronouncing the order