SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

capital gain in the regular course. Thus, the allegation in the 263 proceedings that the Ld. AO has not examined the income offered amounting to Rs. 2.30 crore is only in the grab of change of opinion by the Ld.PCIT. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT-8, Mumbai vs. Sumatichand

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

capital gain in the regular course. Thus, the allegation in the 263 proceedings that the Ld. AO has not examined the income offered amounting to Rs. 2.30 crore is only in the grab of change of opinion by the Ld.PCIT. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT-8, Mumbai vs. Sumatichand

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

153C of the Act whereas Shri Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria was covered under section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A to section 271(1) of the Act cannot be applied in the case on hand as assessee was not searched person. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the finding given by us in case of Shri Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

153C of the Act whereas Shri Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria was covered under section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A to section 271(1) of the Act cannot be applied in the case on hand as assessee was not searched person. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the finding given by us in case of Shri Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

153C of the Act whereas Shri Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria was covered under section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A to section 271(1) of the Act cannot be applied in the case on hand as assessee was not searched person. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the finding given by us in case of Shri Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

153C in the case of the\nappellant, the Ld. AO issued notices under section 142(1) on\n02.05.2022 and 17.08.2022, seeking detailed explanations and\nsupporting documents related to the seized material and Shri\nSuresh Thakkar's statement, which formed the basis for the\nsection 263 proceedings. The L.d. PCIT has failed to appreciate\nthe fact that survey proceedings were conducted

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

153C in the case of the\nappellant, the Ld. AO issued notices under section 142(1) on\n02.05.2022 and 17.08.2022, seeking detailed explanations and\nsupporting documents related to the seized material and Shri\nSuresh Thakkar's statement, which formed the basis for the\nsection 263 proceedings. The L.d. PCIT has failed to appreciate\nthe fact that survey proceedings were conducted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BLUERAY TRADING PVT LTD., MAHARASTRA

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose, whereas the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No. 144/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of 306, Snehdisha, Parab Wadi, Income-Tax, Highway Road, Thane, Central Circle 1(1), Maharashtra Ahmedabad Pan : Aafcm 8859 D अपीलाथ"/ "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross-Objector) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2024

gains and were all managed and controlled by Shri Shirish C. Shah. Paragraph No. 3.1 of the order of the Assessing Officer lists all such evidences which were found by the Assessing Officer as under:- “3.1 Evidence with regard to the fact that all the 212 companies are managed and controlled by him has also been found

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Though a search and seizure action was carried out in Kushal Group there was an independent inquiry and independent reasons given by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessee’s case. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that Section 153C should have been invoked does not come in picture. Therefore, Ground No. 2

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Capital Gain. Though a search and seizure action was carried out in Kushal Group there was an independent inquiry and independent reasons given by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessee’s case. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that Section 153C should have been invoked does not come in picture. Therefore, Ground No. 2