M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

depreciation prior to AY 2002-03 was allowed to be carry forward for only eight assessment years. The Ld. AO has made the above additions without any nexus to incriminating material found during search and seizure

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

seizure and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. 76. Admittedly, the information gathered during the search proceedings can be vital piece of input/material but the same cannot substitute the evidence. It was expected by the revenue to carry out necessary investigation based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

seizure and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. 76. Admittedly, the information gathered during the search proceedings can be vital piece of input/material but the same cannot substitute the evidence. It was expected by the revenue to carry out necessary investigation based

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

seizure and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. 76. Admittedly, the information gathered during the search proceedings can be vital piece of input/material but the same cannot substitute the evidence. It was expected by the revenue to carry out necessary investigation based

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

Search and Seizure operation in the Kushal Group and the assessee was found one of the beneficiaries of availing accommodation entry. In similar circumstances, Department's finding has been upheld by various Courts, latest being the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a recent judgment delivered on 14-06-2022 in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREYASI DHARMEN SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

seizure operation only recourse available with the AO to initiate proceeding under section 153A in case of searched person or under section 153C in case document found and seized belong to other than search person. Both these section have overriding effect over the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the Act. Therefore, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

seizure operation only recourse available with the AO to initiate proceeding under section 153A in case of searched person or under section 153C in case document found and seized belong to other than search person. Both these section have overriding effect over the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the Act. Therefore, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

seizure operation only recourse available with the AO to initiate proceeding under section 153A in case of searched person or under section 153C in case document found and seized belong to other than search person. Both these section have With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 7 overriding effect over the provisions of section

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

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

seizure operation only recourse available with the AO to initiate proceeding under section 153A in case of searched person or under section 153C in case documents found and seized which were belong to other than search person. Both these section have overriding effect over the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the Act. Therefore, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

seizure operation only recourse available with the AO to initiate proceeding under section 153A of the Act in case of searched person or under section 153C of the Act in case document found and seized belonging to other than search person. Both these section have overriding effect over the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the Act. Therefore

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

search and seizure A.Y. 2008-09 24 action carried out in the premises of Shri Naresh Jain, it was stated that information showed that Petitioner had traded in the shares of M/s. Scan Steels Ltd., and was in receipt of Rs. 23,98,014.00 and therefore, Respondent No. 2 concluded that he had reasons to believe that this amount

M/S. GARRISON POLYSACKS P.LTD.,,BARODA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BARODA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

seizure - Assessment years 1980- 81 and 1981-82 - During course of search undersection 132 managing partner of assessee-firm in a statement, admitted unaccounted excess stock worth Rs. 3 lakhs, before two witnesses, who were traders in same locality - Assessing Officer made addition after spreading.it over in assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 -Whether

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Search & Seizure Conducted under Conducted under Action Section 132 (Sadbhav Section 132 (Sadbhav Group) on 06.04.2017 Group) on 06.04.2017 Notice for 17.02.2020 17.02.2020 Reassessment u/s 148 Issued Section of Section 143(3) read Section 143(3) read Reassessment Order with Section 147 with Section 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) ,AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Search & Seizure Conducted under Conducted under Action Section 132 (Sadbhav Section 132 (Sadbhav Group) on 06.04.2017 Group) on 06.04.2017 Notice for 17.02.2020 17.02.2020 Reassessment u/s 148 Issued Section of Section 143(3) read Section 143(3) read Reassessment Order with Section 147 with Section 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2

SHRI SHAILESH S. PATEL,,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3063/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

seizure action on 27.09.2012 at the premises of Shri Rameshbhai B Agrawal group of cases, a 'Banakhat' dated 06.11.2010 was found & seized. As per this 'Banakhat', the appellant along other 4 parties agreed to purchase land (agriculture and non agriculture) at village Sujanpur from one Shri Chandankumar Ramandas Pohani. The details of land including survey numbers & location is mentioned clearly

THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

search and seizure action was carried out at the premises of the assessee and assessment was completed u/s. 158BE of the Act determining total income at Rs. 1,93,94,403/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) thought it fit to hold an inquiry u/s. 250(4) of the Act in order

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

search and seizure action was carried out at the premises of the assessee and assessment was completed u/s. 158BE of the Act determining total income at Rs. 1,93,94,403/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) thought it fit to hold an inquiry u/s. 250(4) of the Act in order

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, VADODARA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA,, VADODARA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

search and seizure action was carried out at the premises of the assessee and assessment was completed u/s. 158BE of the Act determining total income at Rs. 1,93,94,403/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) thought it fit to hold an inquiry u/s. 250(4) of the Act in order

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

search and seizure powers and are invariably subjected to Parliamentary or legislative oversight. The primary object for setting up such regulatory bodies would be to ensure general public utility. The prescribing of standards, and enforcing those standards, through accreditation and continuing supervision through inspection etc.. cannot be considered as trade, business or commercial activity, merely because the testing procedures