JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

1. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in framing assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring fact that there was no incriminating material and impugned year is falls in the category of unabated assessment year. Appellant also craves leave to add, amend, alter, change, delete and edit the above ground of appeal before

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

1/~ during the period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2009 but no material was purchased during that period. Only bogus bills of purchase were shown. All the bills were benami, Further, the Auditor of society had clearly called for the bills during the audit of society which were not produced for audit purpose. 4. On perusal of bank statement it was found that

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

1/~ during the period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2009 but no material was purchased during that period. Only bogus bills of purchase were shown. All the bills were benami, Further, the Auditor of society had clearly called for the bills during the audit of society which were not produced for audit purpose. 4. On perusal of bank statement it was found that

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

section 153A of the Act, the AO noted from the digital data found during the search action contained a copy of the Distribution Deed of land bearing Survey No. 43/4/1 situated at Bodakdev, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad entered between Shri Ashokbhai Krishnagiri (1st Party) and Shri Kishor Krishnagiri & Shri Anup Krishnagiri (2nd Party). The AO noted that the assessee had purchased Shop

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

153A of the Act in pursuance to the search carried out dated 21st October 2016. The year in dispute before us pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14 and therefore the penalty proceedings has to be initiated under Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act reads

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

purchases made by the appellant as bogus u/s 69C since the same was duly supported with bills and made payments through account payee cheques. 4. NFAC failed to consider that A.O. had reopened assessment based on the CBI inquiry, which is not a judicial proceeding, hence it is unrelatable in the Income Tax Assessment Proceeding, thereby quashing the assessment proceeding

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

purchases made by the appellant as bogus u/s 69C since the same was duly supported with bills and made payments through account payee cheques. 4. NFAC failed to consider that A.O. had reopened assessment based on the CBI inquiry, which is not a judicial proceeding, hence it is unrelatable in the Income Tax Assessment Proceeding, thereby quashing the assessment proceeding

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

purchases, brokerage, salaries, personal expenses and jewellery were seized. Statements of key employees of the group handling cash transactions were recorded. Consequently, assessments were framed under sections 153A and 143[3] of the Act for the Asst Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 whereby Assessment Year wise unaccounted cash receipts and payments, as summarized by the AO, is given below