“NFAC”

Apcotex Industries Limited, Raigarh vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 24/07/2025

Lalita Bharatkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Bench: This bunch of three appeals of the assessee were filed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 27/02/2025

Lalita Bharatkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Bench: This bunch of three appeals of the assessee were filed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 27/02/2025

Awadhnarayan Bhagwanta Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & And Smt. Renu Jauhri

Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC),Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and date of order 16/09/2025

Paras Ramlal Jaiswar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19 Paras Ramlal Jaiswar, Income Tax Officer, Flat No.4, Parijat Bldg, Ward-42(1)(4), Pandey Nagar, Raval Pada, Vs. Room No. 736, Dahisar East, Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra-400068. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Afdpj3068H Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain For Revenue : Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 14-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 14-05-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned, Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition under section 56(2)(x) treating difference between Purchase Consideration and Stamp Duty Value as income and making addition of Rs. 3,40,412/- to the total

Mrs Rajani Jagannath Shetty, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 19 2 2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Mrs. Rajani Jagannath Shetty Assessing Officer 19 2 2, A 3102, Ra Residence Opposite Mumbai Sharada Talkies, Dr. Babasaheb Vs. Ambedkar Road, Dadaw East, Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aqpps2210P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Respondent By : Shri Sandeep Jumale - Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.08.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Shree Raj Crystal Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Waqrd 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Shree Raj Crystal Co-Op. Asst. Director Of Income Housing Society Ltd. Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru Royal Complex, Chandawarkar Vs. Road & Eksar Road Junction, Borivali West, Mumbai 400091. Pan/Gir No. Aaas7159K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhavesh Gala/Devang Divech Respondent By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.08.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Viswanathan Vettri Vendhen, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Viswanathan Vettri Dcit, Circle 42(3)(1), M 108, The Retreat By Mint Mumbai Homes, Senthil Nagar, Vs. Sowripalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641028. Pan/Gir No. Aclpv8496Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Purav Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Circle 24(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2015-16 Purav Mahendra Mehta, Circle-24(1), 501/502, Piramal Chamber, Samrath Prasad Vs. Mumbai-400012. Lokhandwala Circle, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan : Aalpm3127B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rajesh S. Shah For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 08-09-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Briefly Stated, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 21-12-2017, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax Capital Gains Amounting To Rs. 80,76,511/- In Respect Of Three Properties Alleged To Have 2 Been Sold By The Assessee During The Financial Year Relevant To The Impugned Assessment Year. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A). The Ld.Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Findings Of The Ao & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 08-09-2024, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessment

Mnp Associates (Converted Into Transcon Cassiopeia Pltd Which Is Mergedwith Transcon Developerspltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present appeals filed by the assesse against order dated 20/03/2025 and 15/04/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2018-19. 2 I.T.A. No. 3965/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 5474/Mum/2025 2. The Ld.AR submitted that

Dhanshri Dilip Gangwani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Dhanshri Dilip Income Tax Officer, Gangwani, Ward-31(2)(1), Plot No.14/114, Akshar Chsl, Kautilya Bhavan, Motilal Nagar No.1, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp. Best Colony, Bandra (East), Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 104 Pan: Boopk8538J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Was Delay Of 210 Days In Filing 1St Appeal Before Ld. Commissioner Challenging The Assessment Order Dt. 24.04.2023 U/S 147 Read With 144(B) Of The Act, On Which The Assessee Though Claimed Before The Ld. Commissioner That Her Mother In Law Had Suffered Severe Health Issues & For That Reason She Remained Hospitalized For Long Time. Therefore, The Assessee Went To Her Native Place At Chindwara

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Dilip Dhirajlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 13.08.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year

Ravindra Kumar Vishwanath Yadav, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Ravindrakumar Vishwanath The Ito, Ward 28 (2)(1), Yadav, Tower 6, Vashi Railway Room No.1118, Samta Nagar Vs. Station Commercial Sector 1A, Airoli, Navi, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai – 400708 Navi Mumbai – 400703. Pan – Acbpy0748G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Mathews, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In This Case, The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Vide Assessment Order 11.03.2024 U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144 B Of The Act, Has Made The Addition Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Being Variation In Respect Of Unexplained Investment U/S. 69 Of The Act.

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.03.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Kshipra Enterproises, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

challenging the impugned order dt. 01.05.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. From the records, I noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before

Raj Group, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2, Kalyan

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 23/03/2025 past by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)"] for assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the outset the Ld. AR submitted that there is delay

Mnp Associates (Converted Into Transcon Cassiopeia Pltd Which Is Mergedwith Transcon Developers Pltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present appeals filed by the assesse against order dated 20/03/2025 and 15/04/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2018-19. 2 I.T.A. No. 3965/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 5474/Mum/2025 2. The Ld.AR submitted that

Kae Capital Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkae Capital Fund, 74Ab, Jolly Maker Chambers Ii, Vinay Shah Marg, Mumbai – 400021 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabtk9875E V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 25(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai

opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing inspite of being requested by the Appellant in writing during the submissions filed before the CIT(A) - NFAC. 1.3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the principle of Audi Alteram by not granting an effective opportunity of being heard before passing

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER