DHARMESSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-20 Dharmessh Shah The Ito, Ward-1 A-301, Vasantkunj Vs Patan. Garden Residency Sanjivan Road Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aelps 5203 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Kunal T. Sanghavi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prathvij Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchases from M/s. Vishnu Gold as high-risk, allegedly involving bogus Input Tax Credit. The AO issued notice under section 148A(b), duly considered the assessee's response, and passed an order under section 148A(d), followed by issue of notice under section 148. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the validity of such reopening by relying on Explanation 1

DHANANJAY TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambledhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs. 505, Padshani Pole, Kalupur, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad-380001 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aadcd 8007 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025

purchases from Kirit D. Patel, as bogus.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a closely held company engaged in the business of trading in Fabric Cotton, Grain, Chemicals, etc. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 07.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,34,770/-. The case was selected

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD., VEJALPUR vs. PEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, ASHRAM ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had received an information that the assessee was a beneficiary of transaction of Rs.116,01,95,815/- in the form of bogus sales made to M/s. Pankaj Metals. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. In the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

AMBAR RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

148A(d) of the Act. The assessee filed return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act again declaring income at ₹5,38,260/-. The Assessing Officer issued notices but the Assessing Officer noted repeated non-compliance of notices and accordingly held that purchases of ₹4,82,10,278/- from M/s S.K. Enterprise were bogus. After rejecting

URVEEN SHIVPRASAD VYAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-2019 Urveen Shivprasad Vyas The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 2, Dev Vihar-H Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Vrundavan Bungalows Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ablpv 7563 R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Prithu Parimal, Advocate : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

148A(d) of the Act solely based on an alleged non-receipt of a reply from the Appellant. It is respectfully submitted that the mere absence of a response from the Appellant does not empower the Ld. AO to initiate reopening proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The Ld. AO was obligated to independently evaluate the material and available

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

148A(d) dated 31-03-2022 with prior permission of specified authority and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05-04-2022. The assessee had not responded to the notice. Therefore notice u/s 142(1) dated 31-01-2023 issued to the assessee, however there was no response. Hence another notice dated 22-06-2023 sent by Speed

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

148A(d) dated 31-03-2022 with prior permission of specified authority and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05-04-2022. The assessee had not responded to the notice. Therefore notice u/s 142(1) dated 31-01-2023 issued to the assessee, however there was no response. Hence another notice dated 22-06-2023 sent by Speed

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

148A(d) dated 31-03-2022 with prior permission of specified authority and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05-04-2022. The assessee had not responded to the notice. Therefore notice u/s 142(1) dated 31-01-2023 issued to the assessee, however there was no response. Hence another notice dated 22-06-2023 sent by Speed

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

148A(d) dated 31-03-2022 with prior permission of specified authority and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05-04-2022. The assessee had not responded to the notice. Therefore notice u/s 142(1) dated 31-01-2023 issued to the assessee, however there was no response. Hence another notice dated 22-06-2023 sent by Speed

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

148A(d) dated 31-03-2022 with prior permission of specified authority and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05-04-2022. The assessee had not responded to the notice. Therefore notice u/s 142(1) dated 31-01-2023 issued to the assessee, however there was no response. Hence another notice dated 22-06-2023 sent by Speed

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

148A(d) dated 31-03-2022 with prior permission of specified authority and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05-04-2022. The assessee had not responded to the notice. Therefore notice u/s 142(1) dated 31-01-2023 issued to the assessee, however there was no response. Hence another notice dated 22-06-2023 sent by Speed

SANA MD.SAQIB PUTHAWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

D” BENCH Before: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sana Md. Saqib Puthawala The ITO, 16B, Kashmira Society, Ward-1(1)(1), Nr. Vishwakunj Cross Vs Ahmedabad Roads, Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007 PAN: CNUPP1538D (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, A.Rs. Revenue Represented: Shri Sher Singh

INNOVATE DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

148A and notice issued u/s 148 were illegal & barred by limitation of time u/s 149(1) so that the same were illegal and unlawful. The conditions precedent for valid reopening was not satisfied. It is, therefore, prayed that the disallowance of loss of RS. 13,18,400/-upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 5. At the outset