“NFAC”

Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2019-20. The assessee has assailed ... impugned order on the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made of Rs. 27,62,936/being Payment of PF and ESIC dues w/s 36(1)(va) of the Act considering

ACIT 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sjr Commodities & Consulting Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the order of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Acit M/S Sjr Commodities & Circle 3(2)(1) Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, 73-C, Su-Raj House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Cross Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacs9779H Assessee By : Shri Vishal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Harmesh Lal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022

learned Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, 3(2)(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) [the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)] for A.Y. 2011-12 vide din no. 17th ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035677097(1) dated September, 2021, wherein the penalty levied

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Banglore

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhbabubhai Jagjivandas Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 128, Vishnu Niketan, Tax(Cpc), Bangalore Prathna Samaj Road, [Acit-19(1)Mumbai] New Charni Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafb5829N Appellant .. Respondent

Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2019-20. The assessee has assailed ... date of filing of return. (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC also erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,29,961/- on account of alleged delay in payment towards Provident Fund, ESIC and any Other Welfare Fund

Ajay Naresh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Ajay Naresh Aggarwal Vs Income-Tax Officer 6 & 7, Court House Circle 18(1), Mumbai L.T. Marg, Dhobi Talao Mumbai-400 002 Pan : Adopa5571B Appellant Respondent

pronouncement 23/05/2022 ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM): This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19/08/2021 for the Assessment year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts are that for the A.Y. 2018-19, intimation under section

Aura Facilities Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore - CPC

In the result, appeal is allowed

order, dated 22.06.2021, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] [National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] in appeal [CITA), Mumbai-16/10008/2019-20] for the Assessment Year ... whereby the CIT(A) (NFAC) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the intimation/order, dated 30.03.2019, issued/passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act. 2. Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA. No. 1429/Mum/2021 Assessment Year

R.P..Synthetics, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sanjay Gargr.P. Synthetics The Dcit Plot No.. R.67, Midc Cpc, Bangalore, Thane Belapur Road, Vs. Karnataka-560500 Navi Mumbai-400 701 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaefr7566C Assessee By : Shri Vinay Devi, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022

provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee filed the appeal before the national Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi where the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the assessee’s submission that no disallowance was warranted in respect of delayed deposit

Sanjona Builders, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sanjay Garg

hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 02. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in passing appellate order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and hence the impugned order is bad in law. 2. The order passed ... NFAC) is bad in law and on facts. Sanjona Builders; A.Y. 16-17 3. Appellant craves leave to add or amend the foregoing Grounds of Appeal. 4. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of reducing a sum of Rs 32,35,787/- from

Suryaji Shriram Patekar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 34(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming relief of Rs.2,97,711/- allowed by learned A.O. under section 89(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read wit Rule ... facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ought to have allowed relief under section 89(1) read with Rule 21A(1)(a) amounting to Rs.15,96,688/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the above

Jitendra Umarshi Ganatra, 2201, Tridev Towers, Bhakti Marg, Mulund West vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. No.1666/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jitendra Umarshi Ganatra…………….……..….…..………………….……Appellant 2201, Tridev Towers, Bhakti Marg, Mulund West-400080. [Pan:Aacpg8936D] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Prakash Iyer, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sn Kabra, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 19, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 19, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jitendra Umarshi Ganatra…………….……..….…..………………….……Appellant 2201, Tridev Towers, Bhakti Marg, Mulund West-400080. [PAN:AACPG8936D] vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi...……………..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Prakash Iyer, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri SN Kabra, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding ... Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.08.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

316/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 1 M/s Shankar Packagings Limited Vs. NFAC, Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane ... Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has assailed

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

BENCH: The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Ys. 2018-19 2019-20. We shall first take ... Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CPC “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made of Rs.5,02,906/- being Payment of PF and ESIC dues u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act considering

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

BENCH: The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Ys. 2018-19 2019-20. We shall first take ... Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CPC “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made of Rs.5,02,906/- being Payment of PF and ESIC dues u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act considering

Ramesh V.Shah`, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3) (3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter alia that :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA Nos. 981 and 1725/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

Blackstone Fp Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd., Mauritius vs. DCIT Intl Tax Cir.1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA Nos. 981 and 1725/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI