“NFAC”

Deepak Dhanraj Rathod, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 44, Mumbai in physical form. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in terms of Notification No.76 of 2020, dated 25/09/2020, issued by Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi. Vide Order, dated 23/05/2025, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee which has been impugned by way of present appeal preferred by the Assessee.

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 23/05/2025, 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 against the Assessment Order, dated 23/12/2019, passed under ... appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 44, Mumbai in physical form. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in terms of Notification No.76 of 2020, dated 25/09/2020, issued by Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi. Vide Order, dated 23/05/2025

Shree Sai Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kalyan

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shree Sai Constructions Vs. NFAC, Delhi 002, Sundervan Building, Dy. Commissioner of Mahaveer Nagar, Badlapur Income Tax-1, Kalyan West Mumbai – 421 503 PAN/GIR No.AB1FS1599P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Mrs. Ruchi ... AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi, in relation to the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that

Chandrakant Jethmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai, Bkc, Bandra (East)

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychandrakant Jethmal Jain, Ito, Ward-41(1), Flat No.E-2004, Anmol Excel Mumbai Estate, S.V. Road, Opp. Patel Vs. Petrol Pump, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Aacpj 0335 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27/05/2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Foods and Inns Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

been preferred by the assessee, Foods and Inns Limited, against the order dated 16th June 2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising from the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee

Safe and Sure Marine Services Private Limited, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Safe & Sure Marine Income Tax Officer, Services Private Limited, Ward 8(1)(2), 5, Sagar Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, 327 Narsi Natha Street, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Masjid Bunder, M.K. Road, Mumbai Churchgate, Maharashtra – 400 009 Mumbai Pan: Aahcs8193E Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In This Case, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Of Sending Notices For The Dates Of The Previous Hearings As Well As For Today, Thus, This Court Is Constrained To Decide This Appeal As Ex-Parte.

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Bsel Tech Park Premisies Co Operative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Bsel Tech Park Commissioner Of Income Premisies Co-Operative Tax, Society Ltd., 4Th Floor, Tower 6, Bsel Tech Park, Vs. Vashi Station Complex, Opp Infotech Park, Vashi Vashi Maharashtra – 400 075 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aacab1755G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Naina Chaurasia, Ld. C.A. Revenue By : Shri Leyaqaat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.05.2025, 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. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Disallowed The Deduction Claimed U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act On Account Of Interest Income Earned From Co-Operative Banks To The Tune Of Rs.28,30,300/- As Detailed Below:

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.05.2025, 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

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhawan vs. Samsonite South Asia Pvt Ltd, Andheri

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 3(1)(1) 402/Ackruti Star, Midc, 607, Ayakar Bhawan, M.K. Andheri East, Vs. Road, Mumbai – 400093 Mumbai - 400020 (Pan: Aaacs8598L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Jitendra Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075686655(1), Dated 21.04.2025, Passed Against The Order By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(3), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.03.2014, For Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.7,32,38,757/- Incurred By The Assessee For Building Of ‘Samsonite’ Brand Without Appreciating The Fact That These Expenses Were Incurred Towards Creating Intangible Rights In Its Favour Which Are Capable Of Giving Enduring Benefits To The Assessee Company & Hence Are Assignable Over A Number Of Year?

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075686655(1), dated 21.04.2025, passed against the order by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3), Mumbai u/s.143(3) of the Income

M/S. Fortune Gourmet Specialities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrim/S. Fortune Gourment Vs. Acit Circle 6(3)(1) Specialities Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 107 Adhyaru Industrial Mumbai-400020. Estate, Sun Mill Comound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacf4952B Appellant .. Respondent

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in fact and in law in confirming the re-assessment proceedings carried out by the Ld. AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred ... free dividend income of Rs. 4,27,313. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,27,313 made

M/S. Suravi Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 26/03/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2018-19 on following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal a) without considering

Dipti Jagdish Satwani, Mumbai vs. AO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Precedents including the following relied upon before the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A):  Ms. Sonakshi Sinha vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (ITA No.1704/Mum/2022)  Ms. Brinda RamaKrishna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Bangalore (ITA No.454/Bang/2021)  Mr. Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi vs. CIT(A), NFAC ... ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore [ITA No.29/Bang/2021] d) Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ms. Sonakshi Sinha Vs, CIT(A), NFAC [ITA No.1704/Mum/2022] e) Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi Vs. CIT(A), NFAC [ITA No.680/Bang/2022] f) Decision of the Tribunal

Versova Sandeep Sarovar Chs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriversova Sandeep Sarovar Chs Income Tax Officer Ltd. 206, Kautilyabhavan, Vs. Plot No. 13 Svp Nagar, Four Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra Bunglows, Andheri West, Mumbai East, Mumbai 400051 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaav1292J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Satyanarayan Desai/ Shri Lalkaka /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per 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 28.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

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 28.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Desai Road vs. CIT (Appeal), Piramal Chamber

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI. RAJ

Anuh Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

ITO-27(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Suruchi Purwar, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2018-19

Cross objection by the Assessee have been preferred against the order dated 10.02.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Prabhunath Majhi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 29/05/2024 passed by NFAC Delhi for assessment year 2010-11. 2. It is noted that a letter from a doctor stating that the assessee is suffering from viral fever

Chrandrashekhar Dinkar Chavan, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Mumbai

In the result the present appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 21/02/2024 passed by NFAC Delhi, for assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld.DR submitted that vide order dated 22/07/2025 in ITA No.2193/Mum/2025, this Tribunal for the very

Income Tax Offier-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Heena Ashok Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Member: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 30.01.2025, 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

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Heena Ashok Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Member: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 30.01.2025, 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

Novelty Power & Infratec Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry&

CHOUDHRY, JM This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28/01/2025 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Baburao Ravji Chavan, Dombivli vs. Assessing Officer, Kalyan

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Pronouncement 30.09.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 09/01/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year 2018-19 on following grounds of appeal: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Baburao Chavan (hereinafter referred