JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground. 10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years

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

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

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

b) the proposed revision of assessment is based on the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) received by the department and based on the same Revenue Audit Team recommended for the Revision of assessment and Pr.CIT has not formed his own opinion to revise the assessment, therefore, it is not legally valid. [c] invocation of revision under section 263 by the ld.Pr.CIT

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

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

b) the proposed revision of assessment is based on the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) received by the department and based on the same Revenue Audit Team recommended for the Revision of assessment and Pr.CIT has not formed his own opinion to revise the assessment, therefore, it is not legally valid. [c] invocation of revision under section 263 by the ld.Pr.CIT

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#।]

B. Findings on merits : 15.2. On merits as well, the AO’s action of extrapolating a rate from an unverified, unexplained note about a third-party property to all the properties purchased by the assessees, herein, and thereby making impugned additions based on assumptions and presumptions, is arbitrary and devoid of any legal sanctity. The assessee provided evidence that

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

M/S. M.P. AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus purchases by the assessee, which, according to the learned Assessing Officer, was done by the assessee with an intention to inflate the purchase and reduce the profit. The said assessment was ultimately finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b

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