“NFAC”

Girgaon Vijayshree Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

ITA No. 457/Mum/2026 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “J-SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT

Kalpana Sanjay Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-41(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-1, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 31/10/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 24/05/2023, passed under

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 11/12/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29/05/2023, passed under

ITO 19 1 5 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Johratussharaf Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2017-18 Ito – 19(1)(5) Vs. Johratussharf Syedna 502, Piramal Chembers Mufaddal Saifuddin Lalbaug, Mumbai – Saifee Mahal, Ag Bell 400012. Marg, Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Amrps6217J (Applicant) (Respondent)

MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year

Shree Sai Hospitality, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mumbai, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2018-19 Shree Sai Hospitality Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1) C/32, Harias Dream Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Park, Mira Bhayander Road No. 16Z, Wagle Road, Mira Road (E), Industraial Estate, Thane – Mira-Bhayandar – 400604. 401107. Pan/Gir No. Acyfs5492G (Applicant) (Respondent)

total income at Rs. 1,70,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), NFAC, who vide order passed under section 250 dated 14.10.2025 confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, noting that the assessee had not filed

Income Tax Officer 15.2.1, Mumbai vs. Novire Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2022 Income Tax Officer 15.2.1, Vs. Novire Technologies Pvt. Mumbai Ltd. El-16 Midc, Mahape, Navi Room No.204, Second Floor, Mumbai-400710 Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aabcn9257A

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2022-23 arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Hitesh Khimchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabash Shankarincome Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Vs. Hitesh Khimchand Jain Room No. 502, 5Th Floor, 123 East, 1St Flr, Piramal Chambers , Shanti Bhawan, V.P. Lalbaug, Parel, Road Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Afxpb7780C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order 06.10.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Citia) Arred In Restricting Addition On The Alleged Bogus Purchases Without Appreciating The Fact That Ao Made Addition On The Basis Information Was Received From The Sales Department Tax That The Assesses Was Beneficiary Of Hawala Bilis Or Accommodation Entries

Revenue challenging the impugned order 06.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12. The following grounds are reproduced below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Pratibha Arvind Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16 Pratibha Arvind Shah Vs. Ito Ward-42(1)(4), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Mumbai A Wing 701 Sat Kripa Chs, Prem Nagar Bldg No 6, Prem Nagar Above Bank Of Baroda, Borivali West Mumbai-400092 Pan: Bpups9560P

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015–16 arising out of the assessment order passed

Rajendra Nanaso Godase, Dombivali vs. ITO 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.11.2025, impugned herein, passed by 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

Riddhi Pratik Bhatt, Kandivali West, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer Mum Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by 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

Mrs. Parnal Nishant Mehar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

These are two appeals 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 02-09-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that these two appeals are filed

Ramesh Kanhayalal Lodha, Godiji Building, Kika Street, Masjid Bunder Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(6), Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg Parel Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by 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