“NFAC”

Raima Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Raima Toll Road Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of B1-406, Boomerang, Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Chandivali Farm Road, Mumbai Vs. Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 (Pan : Aagcr1492L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Simran Dhawan, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075067439(1), Dated 26.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 14.04.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075067439(1), dated 26.03.2025 passed against the assessment order by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 143(3) of the Income ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) through National Faceless 2 Raima Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. AY 2018-19 Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in passing an ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.03.2025 in utter ignorance of the written submissions and paperbook filed by the appellant

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, \u2018A\u2019 BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Bombay Education Society, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Exem Circle 1, Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised

Siddhidhata Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 3(3), Thane

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 26/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2013-14. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. The CIT Appeal

Axis Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073281158(1), dated 14.02.2025 passed against the assessment order passed by National e-Assessment Centre, u/s. 143(3) of the Income ... taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: " 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC has erred in upholding the disallowance of club membership expense of Rs. 2 Axis Finance Ltd. AY 2018-19 7,59,872 claimed as business

Pashupati Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR

DCIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mspl Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14/02/2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Revenue

Haresh Nagindas Mehta, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1)(7), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2012-13 Haresh Nagindas Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, B/6, Samadhan Bldg, Ward-26(1)(7), L.T. Road, Mulund (E), Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400081. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aabpm4028K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Neha Paranjpe For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : 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 28-02-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Assessee Has Moved A Prayer For Admission Of The Following Additional Grounds Of Appeal: “Reopening Is Bad In Law: 1. The Reassessment Proceedings Initiated By The Ao & The Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Same Are Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction

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 28-02-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee

B.P. Marine Academy, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11/09/2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the quantum assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year ... submissions. However, no order was passed for an extended period, and in the meantime, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appellant was not aware of the procedural shift and the likelihood of electronic notices being issued via email or the ITBA portal. Consequently

Varsha Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised

New Sarnath Co Op Housing Society Limited, Breach Candy vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

Bench: CIT(A) against the aforesaid Intimation, dated 22/01/2015, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act which was dismissed vide order, dated 14/02/2025. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 2 above.

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 07/04/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby

Sonhira Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi Ito-41(2)(5), Maryadit, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Omkar Tenants Co-Operative Bandra East, Housing Society Ltd., Indira Nagar, Mumbai-400051. Kanjur Village Road, Kanjurmarg East, Mumbai-400042. Pan No. Aaeas 6698 D Appellant Respondent

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI

Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Bandra East vs. ITO-23(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Ito-23(3)(1), Room No. 402, Mina Centre Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Building, Ahmed Zakaria Nagar, Mumbai-400012. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ardpa 8448 G Appellant Respondent

case and as per the law, the order dated 07.08.2023 as passed by the Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals is bad in law since it dismisses the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals is bad in law since it dismisses the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals ... circumstances of the case and as 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals erred in deciding per the law, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals erred in deciding per the law, the Ld. NFAC / CIT Appeals erred

Anshul Gupta, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2527/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Anshul Gupta V/S. Income Tax Officer, B-91, First Floor, Ardee बिाम Ward 42(2)(1) City, Sector 52, Gurgaon Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 122001 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amrpg7068D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Mr. Vasu Bansal (Virtually Present) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat Sr Dr

RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] on 24.02.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee ... raised the following grounds in these appeals. “1. That the learned NFAC did not properly consider the submissions made by the Assessee before them. As the order by the learned AO was passed under Section 144 all the evidences were additional evidences and for which application was also made

Anshul Gupta, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mr. Anshul Gupta Ito 42(2)(1) B-91, First Floor Kautilya Bhavan Ardee City Sector 52 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Gurgaon-122 001. Bndra, Mumbai-51. Pan : Amrpg7068D Appellant Respondent

confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Appellant filed further appeal before the ITAT with following grounds of appeal : 1. That the learned NFAC did not properly consider the submissions made by the Assessee before them. As the order by the learned AO was passed under Section 144 all the evidences ... unexplained deposits in the bank account. The credits in the bank account are explainable and thus opportunity is seeked to explain the credits. The NFAC did not consider the complete bank statements submitted in which all credit entries were explanatory. 5. From the above, it can be seen that

Urvi Hitalkumar Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai, Bkc

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2406/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Urvi Hitalkumar Patel V/S. Income Tax Officer, B 1101, Shreenath Tower, बिाम Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai Shankar Lane, Kandivali Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, West 400067 Bkc, Bandra East 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Cevpp8858L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Manish Sheth राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) - Delhi, 24.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year: 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds ... appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC- Delhi, erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the ld. AO which was in violation of section 149(1)(b) of The Income Tax Act 1961, since