“NFAC”

Mayur Govindbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, terms of Paragraph 15 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 against the Order, dated 06/02/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, ITA No.4177

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Fairdeal Electronics, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and CO filed by the Assessee, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017 & Co No. 211/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. CIT(A)) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Rakesh Ramadhar Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrirakesh Ramadhar Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, 304, B-Wing Dolphin Ward 2(3)(2), Heritage, Nehru Road, Opp. Room No. 581A, Military Camp, Santacruz 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400029. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Altps1647P Appellant .. Respondent

Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessing Officer" for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 and as confirmed by learned NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) commissioner vide order dated 26/08/2024 vide Din ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067982105(1), on the following among other grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. Rajesh Investments, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC both dated 27.11.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19. Certain facts in both the appeals are common, the assessee has raised certain common ground

M/S. Rajesh Investments, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC both dated 27.11.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19. Certain facts in both the appeals are common, the assessee has raised certain common ground

Vaishali Umesh Naik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Vaishali Umesh Naik Income-Tax Officer, 1052, Diwale Koliwada, Nr Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai Darga Post, Kokan Bhavan, Vs. Income-Tax Office, Vashi Sector 14, Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Navi Mumbai- 400703 Pan: Aeapn4619L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla Revenue By : Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Cit(A)) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, Agreement For Sale Of Property Under Consideration I.E. Flat No. 302, 3Rd Floor, Meridian Meadows, Navi Mumbai, Which Was Purchased On Total Consideration Of Rs. 85,00,000/- Showing Joint Ownership Of The Assessee & Her Husband, Was Registered With The Registration Authority On Dated 29.10.2015. The Assessing Officer (Ao) By Noticing The Facts & Examining The Bank Statement Of Assessee’S Husband Mr. Umesh

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. CIT(A)) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

DCIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Xoriant Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

orders of CIT (A) 58, Mumbai, vide order nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074419252(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074418247(1), dated 12.03.2025 passed against the assessment orders by NFAC, Delhi, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated

DCIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Xoriant Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

orders of CIT (A) 58, Mumbai, vide order nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074419252(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074418247(1), dated 12.03.2025 passed against the assessment orders by NFAC, Delhi, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated

Sunita Pandey, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. CIT(A)) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Shashwat Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

M/S. Bharat Agri Fert and Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 14/02/2025, passed by the Commissioner National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 18/03/2021, passed under

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

3286/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit The present appeals filed by the assessee arises out of separate orders passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 24/02/2024 for assessment years under consideration. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that though the assessee represented before NFAC and filed its submissions ... more than 379 days. 2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, upon receipt of penalty notice assessee realised about the appeals being disposed off by the NFAC. The assessee immediately took necessary steps to filed present appeals along with application seeking condonation of delay. 2.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

3286/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit The present appeals filed by the assessee arises out of separate orders passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 24/02/2024 for assessment years under consideration. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that though the assessee represented before NFAC and filed its submissions ... more than 379 days. 2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, upon receipt of penalty notice assessee realised about the appeals being disposed off by the NFAC. The assessee immediately took necessary steps to filed present appeals along with application seeking condonation of delay. 2.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

3286/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit The present appeals filed by the assessee arises out of separate orders passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 24/02/2024 for assessment years under consideration. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that though the assessee represented before NFAC and filed its submissions ... more than 379 days. 2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, upon receipt of penalty notice assessee realised about the appeals being disposed off by the NFAC. The assessee immediately took necessary steps to filed present appeals along with application seeking condonation of delay. 2.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee

Rupesh D Desai Legal Heir of Late Pravin Desai, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 27(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

Pronouncement 31.10.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present penalty appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 25/02/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2009-10 on following grounds of appeal: “(1) On the facts & circumstances and in law the learned NATIONAL DELHI [NFAC ... imposed by ACIT 27(2) NAVI MUMBAI. (2) On the facts and circumstances and in law and in the interest of justice, the learned {NFAC(A) failed to appreciate that the all the notices were replied and submitted on line. (3) On the facts and circumstances Your Appellant prays that

Disha Jay Thakkar, Dahisar East vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-45, Mumbai, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

Complex, C S Road, Nr. Mrugneshwar Mandi Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AGCPT7648F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mukesh Chokshi Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR Date

Rahi Motor Transport Co, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 23(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

assessee challenging the different impugned orders 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 2014-15. 2. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have

Rahi Motor Transport Co, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 23(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

assessee challenging the different impugned orders 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 2014-15. 2. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have

Harshvardhan Management & Consultants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2014-15 Harshvardhan Management Income Tax Officer & Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Ward-10(1)(1), R.H. 19, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Powai Vihar R.H.S. Ltd. M.K. Road, Chandivali, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan : Aabch9837J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ashok Patil For Revenue : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

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 27-01-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessment in this

ITO-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjaykumar Shankarlal Export Private Limited, Navi Mumba

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

cross-objections by the assessee emanate from separate but identical orders dated 18 June 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning reassessments framed under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2014–15 and 2015–16 respectively. 2. In both years