KRINA MAHESH MARU,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Krina Mahesh Maru, Ito-41(2)(2), A-1, Mahesh Krupa Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Devidayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West-400080. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aeupv 8901 P Appellant Respondent

Section 151A and the notification issued thereunder thereunder notifying notifying e-Assessment e Assessment of of Income Income Escaping Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment order and the notice as well

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

151A of the Act and is thus bad in law. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming order of A.O. holding that the CSR fund received by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 15,65,17,000/- is to be treated as income under

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

151A of the Act and is thus bad in law. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming order of A.O. holding that the CSR fund received by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 15,65,17,000/- is to be treated as income under

ANAND GOVIND PARAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Anand Govind Parab Assessing Officer Assessment Unit Flat No. 12, C-11, 1St Floor, Income Tax Department Gayatri Cps Sector, Sanpada, Vs. Ito Ward 34(2)(2) G Block, Bkc Navi Mumbai-400 705 Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051

Condon the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). Along with filing appeal and in reply to defection notice issued by CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected without taking into consideration of my application at all. As if I have not reply at all. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) issued notice of deficiency i.e. and asked for submission of application

SANTOSH KUMAR RAMLAXMAN YADAV,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

delay in filing appeal before the NFAC may be condoned. 2 I.T.A. No. 5123/Mum/2025 2. The Learned NFAC failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer who issued reopening notice and Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order did not have jurisdiction over the Assessee. 3. The Learned NFAC erred in conforming the order of ld AO without appreciating that reopening

HARLEEN KAUR GHURA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarharleen Kaur Ghura Vs. Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), B 602 Ambe Prerna, Sector Mumbai 3, Ghansoli, It-Office, Vasi Railway Navi Mumbai- 400701, Station Building, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan/Gir No. Aovpg9346L (Applicant) (Respondent)

151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby. rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appeal of the appellant before the CIT (A) may please be restored

BAJRANGLLAL MANGALCHAND SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in statement of facts and explained the facts & reasons of delay. 4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after 29.03.2022 by the Bajrangllal Mangalchand

TECHNO RESIDENCY CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

section 147 to 151A of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, failed to condone of delay in filing

JAMES IVAN DANTIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO -41(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the same. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “The appellant prefers an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal ITAs No.4093/Mum/2025 & 628/Mum/2026(A.Ys. 2015-16) 4 Centre, Delhi, dated 06/11/2024

JAMES IVAN DANTIS,NIGERIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-41(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the same. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “The appellant prefers an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal ITAs No.4093/Mum/2025 & 628/Mum/2026(A.Ys. 2015-16) 4 Centre, Delhi, dated 06/11/2024

MARK FOODS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoning the delay in filing the appeal thereby violating the principles of natural Justice. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 81,75,025/-on account of unexplained source of income under section 68 merely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. 11. In the facts

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JMP SECURITIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Vs. Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C. O. No. 182/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3792/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jmp Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(3)(1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square, 274, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Perin Nariman St. Bazar Gate, Fort, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8850C (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri. Omkandalkar Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The 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)

Delay condoned. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made on account of variation in respect of issue of unexplained credits u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 6,18,86,301/- even while

SHREE MANGIRISH CO-OPERATIVE HSG LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-42(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

151A of the Act.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO, in\nnot providing the sanction note of the PCCIT, thereby violating the\nbinding directions laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of SABH Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT [2018] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi).\n5. In the facts

SUSHIL RAJBANSHI GUPTA,BHANDUP WEST MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(4)(4), KAUTILYA BHAVAN BKC MUMBAI

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

151A of the Act. The order under section 147 is therefore illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction as the jurisdictional conditions of section 147 to 151 have not been complied with. 3. On the facts and circumstances

TUKARAM VINAYAK ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, THANE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

151A of the Act and therefore,the notice/ order are bad in law. Consequently, the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed; 2.4. The CIT(A) AO failed to appreciate that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act without a valid sanction are bad in law. The AO failed

ARVIND DADA KOLEKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the CBDT. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (Appeals), has erred in passing an order without allowing the Condonation delay

FAISAL BADRUDDIN SHITWARE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAX WARD)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

151A read with Notification 18 of 2022; 1.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned re-assessment be quashed and set aside. ON JURISDICTION AND VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS: 2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order as passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation since

ACIT CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JMP SECURITIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

151A of the Act. Thus, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is unlawful, invalid and bad in law. 4) The actions of the NFAC in upholding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme as well as the law laid down