“NFAC”

Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the CIT(A). The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that without awaiting for adjudication of the said appeal, the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order confirming the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal challenging the levy of penalty only after taking into consideration the result of the quantum appeal. It was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee that in view of the aforesaid facts, impugned order be set aside.

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 05/02/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 04/03/2022, passed under Section ... admitted position that the aforesaid addition was challenged in appeal by the Assessee and the said appeal preferred was pending adjudication before the NFAC. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the aforesaid appeal in quantum proceedings would have a bearing on the challenge

Fortune Metals Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(2), Aaykar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Date of Pronouncement : 10/09/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 27/05/2025 by NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)"\} pertaining to AY 2013-14. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under:- “1. On the facts

Imperial College India Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem Ward 1(3), Mumbai

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 14/05/2025, 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 10/12/2018, passed under

Bhairu Laxman Kumbhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankar

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Priti Prajyot Potphode, Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Palghar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri. Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4058/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Priti Prajyot Potphode V/S. Income Tax Officer Umber Pada Wadare, बिधम Ward 3 Safale, Palghar 401102 Amba Wadi, Palghar, Maharashtra, Thane 401404 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajhpm9841M Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Tanmay Phadke-Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Which In Turn Arises From The Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act Passed By Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Extracted As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)] Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte In Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice. Thus, The Order Dated 26.08.2024 May Be Set Aside & The Matter May Be Restored Back To The File Of The Learned Commissioner (Appeals).

ARUN KHODPIA, AM:- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.08.2024 for the assessment year 2014-15, which in turn arises from the order u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act passed by Assessing Officer ... NFAC, Delhi, dated 26.03.2021. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are extracted as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["the learned Commissioner (Appeals)] erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte

Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

therefore penalty would not be levied. Reliance was placed on Delhi Tribunal Judgment in the case of Prem Brother Infrastructure LLP V/s NFAC (2022) 142 taxmann.com 38 (Delhi) and also on Pr. CIT 2 V/s Gruh Infrastructure Limited (2018) 100 taxmann.com 104 (SC). 7. The submission of the assessee/appellate with