“reopening of assessment”

Sardarbhai Ramsangbhai Dhuliya, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Previously Ward-5, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 22-05-2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1)

taxable. It was also submitted that the assessee has not deposited any cash in the bank account , and A.O. erred in reopening of assessment based upon allegation of cash deposit of Rs.14,46,320/- in the bank account , and later on the A.O. made the addition of Rs.14

Chandrakant Gordhanbhai Patel HUF, Dabhoi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: The Final Hearing Of This Appeal Petition…”

basis of material available on record. The assessee filed written submissions before the AO in response to SCN , as under : “ i. Reasons of reopening of assessment dated 03.06.2019 has not been received to it at that time. However, it further stated that reasons of reopening have been seen ... online. ii. The reopening of assessment is based on the belief that he has not submitted return of income and assessed as per same. He I.T.A No.485/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 4 Chandrkant Gordhanbhai Patel v. DCIT has disclosed all facts regarding receipts of income & TDS and there

Arvindkumar Amulkh Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2 (3), Ahmeadabad

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

concluded assessments under Section 153A of the Act. The rationale was that Section 153A of the Act is not an automatic tool for reopening completed assessments; it is contingent upon the discovery of incriminating evidence during a search. (3) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva ... should be based on incriminating material is likely to hold, even under the new provisions, as the rationale behind requiring tangible material for reopening an assessment remains a cornerstone of the reassessment process. Hon’ble The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India

M/S. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding reopening of assessment by the Ld. AO on reivies of case records. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment ... partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. As regards additional ground, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment has reviewed the original assessment order and, therefore, the review of the original assessment order is not permissible and the assessment itself