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

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 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) 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,(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, 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, 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

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section\n147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the\nAssessing Officer is satisfied that,—\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain

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

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

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding