“NFAC”

Kaushal Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT further failed to appreciate that the Appellant has filed appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) against the disallowance of purchases made from NTPL, which is pending and thus, the recourse to sec.263

Parag Bipinchandra Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

challenging the impugned order dt. 31.12.2024 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 2016-17. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called, however an application

Prathamesh Graphics & Digital, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Pronouncement आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER SANDEEP GOSAIN (J.M): This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of NFAC, Delhi, dated 29/07/2023 for A.Y.2017-18 which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income

Ogd Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

grounds of appeal are as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(A) has erred that appellant has concealed any income or particular of income and passed a penalty order determining a penalty of Rs.16

Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Moradiya Gems LLP, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalito, Ward – 19(2)(2) Vs. Moradia Gems Llp 503, 5Th Floor, Piramal Unit No. 2, The Jewel Chamber, Lalbaug – Mama Parmanand 400012. Marg, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aawfm5039P (Applicant) (Respondent)

challenging the impugned order dt. 17.10.2024 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. All the grounds raised by the revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging ... Suspicious Transaction. In other words, it is naturally not confirmed a dubious transaction as projected by the assessing officer as well as NFAC. Ithas also listed a document named Investigationinnocent96B docx but it has not been provided to the assessee for its cross examination. (c) Approval u/s 151 dated 23rd

Pallavi Santosh Bhave, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27/09/2024 on following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre ... NFAC)/ CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 7,35,966/-. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds

Late Mr. Shankerlal Doulatram Ramani Through Legal Heir Mr. Rajesh Shankarlal Ramani, Navi Mumbai vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16/10/2024 for assessment year 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal: “Grounds: 1. The order dated 16/10/2024 bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069704382[1] passed ... NFAC, Delhi, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 2 ITA No. 5757/Mum/2024 AY: 2017-18 Late Mr. Shankerlal Doulatram Ramani 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable C.I.T.(A) has erred

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Blue Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd Ce-9010,9013, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Room No.568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aadcb6475E Appellant Respondent

Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 25/01/2024. The impugned

ACIT 2(2)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. National Peroxide Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No 2816/Mum/2023 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit 2(2)(1) Mumbai Vs National Peroxide Limited 4Th Floor, Naville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcn7072K

Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal center (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year, 12018-19, date of order 13/06/2023. The impugned