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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A vide assessment order dated 21.03.2014. Thus, the finding given in para 12 in the said order of the Tribunal is on presumption. Besides this the observation that the impugned transaction for claiming the deduction on account of the depreciation

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

153A of the Act could have been initiated. Accordingly, the AO on the basis of the materials found during the search proceedings initiated the income escapement proceedings under section 147 of the Act for the year under consideration. As such, the AO has received the information from the DDIT vide letter dated 24th of March 2015. The information received

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

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 notice under section 148 of the Act on basis of search material

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

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 notice under section 148 of the Act on basis of search material

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

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 147 and 148 of the Act. Therefore, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing notice under 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

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 in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on basis of search

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

Depreciation is withdrawn assessed Normal at Rs.26.55 crores Book Profits at Rs.391.41 crores Tax paid: Rs.79.42 crores Tax payable: Rs.79.14 crores Refund due Rs.28.61 lakhs. Computation now gives full TDS credit, But 244A interest is not calculated although agreed to in order 11.06:2018 34-35 Rectification application by Assessee to correct error in order

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

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, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing notice under section

M/S. FLOURISH PUREFOODS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. 3. In the appeal relating to quantum additions in ITA No. 518/Ahd/2019, there are primarily two additions, which are the subject matter of appeal. The first addition relates to addition

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

153A of the Act. iii. There was no name of the assessee appearing on such seized document. Likewise, there were various figures recorded therein which the AO has treated some as receipt of the assessee and some as payment without any proper justification. For example, there was mention a head as “new diary” where certain amounts were recorded against

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

153A of the Act. iii. There was no name of the assessee appearing on such seized document. Likewise, there were various figures recorded therein which the AO has treated some as receipt of the assessee and some as payment without any proper justification. For example, there was mention a head as “new diary” where certain amounts were recorded against

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

153A of the Act. iii. There was no name of the assessee appearing on such seized document. Likewise, there were various figures recorded therein which the AO has treated some as receipt of the assessee and some as payment without any proper justification. For example, there was mention a head as “new diary” where certain amounts were recorded against

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

153A(b) and 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2001-02 to 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since all the assessment relating to the same assessee and the grounds are identical these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2008 (A.Y. 2001-02)(Revenue

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

153A(b) and 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2001-02 to 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since all the assessment relating to the same assessee and the grounds are identical these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2008 (A.Y. 2001-02)(Revenue

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

153A(b) and 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2001-02 to 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since all the assessment relating to the same assessee and the grounds are identical these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2008 (A.Y. 2001-02)(Revenue

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

153A(b) and 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2001-02 to 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since all the assessment relating to the same assessee and the grounds are identical these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2008 (A.Y. 2001-02)(Revenue

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

153A(b) and 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2001-02 to 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since all the assessment relating to the same assessee and the grounds are identical these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2008 (A.Y. 2001-02)(Revenue

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 269SS are not attracted. However in his reply the assessee has not bifurcated cash deposits in MVCB and in the Three concerns. The assessee has stated that Rs.1,55,39,500/- pertain to his Firm assessee. The assessee further stated that amount pertaining to M/s. Rugnath Bhavchand Prop. Smt. Indumatiben R. Tanna is Rs.8,45,000 which pertains

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 269SS are not attracted. However in his reply the assessee has not bifurcated cash deposits in MVCB and in the Three concerns. The assessee has stated that Rs.1,55,39,500/- pertain to his Firm assessee. The assessee further stated that amount pertaining to M/s. Rugnath Bhavchand Prop. Smt. Indumatiben R. Tanna is Rs.8,45,000 which pertains