TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.5,06,392/-.” 8. The assessee has raised the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “5.0 The impugned assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.09.2013 is void-ab-initio and should be quashed since the statutory and mandatory approval was granted u/s 153D

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#।]

seizure action was carried out under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (herein after referred to as “the Act”) on the Gogia Group on 15.10.2019. The search operation covered the business and residential premises of the main promoters, Shri Shivkumar Gogia and his family members, as well as various partnership firms and companies associated with the group

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment years after the search u/s.132 is conducted in the case of the assessee, and that if the interpretation of the Id. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to assess such income in the 153A proceedings. Further, no other parallel proceedings can be initiated to assess such

SHRI HIMANSHU PRAFULCHANDRA VARIA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

disallowances , no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. He has further argued that the non disclosure of Rs.59,19,500/- was under bona fide mistake and has been considered and offered in the revised computation of income filed by the appellant during the course

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act on 30-10-2018 at the premises of the Kailash Goenka Group. The search revealed incriminating materials in the form of handwritten diaries, loose papers, and bills, indicating substantial unaccounted receipts from the hotel and restaurant businesses, as well as corresponding unaccounted expenditures incurred in cash. 3. During the assessment proceedings under

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act on 30-10-2018 at the premises of the Kailash Goenka Group. The search revealed incriminating materials in the form of handwritten diaries, loose papers, and bills, indicating substantial unaccounted receipts from the hotel and restaurant businesses, as well as corresponding unaccounted expenditures incurred in cash. 3. During the assessment proceedings under

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

disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A, by not appreciating the fact involved in this case and holding that no incriminating material was found during search for A.Y,2009-10 and hence the proceeding for A.Y.2009-10 remained unabated. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

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

disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A, by not appreciating the fact involved in this case and holding that no incriminating material was found during search for A.Y,2009-10 and hence the proceeding for A.Y.2009-10 remained unabated. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

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

disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A, by not appreciating the fact involved in this case and holding that no incriminating material was found during search for A.Y,2009-10 and hence the proceeding for A.Y.2009-10 remained unabated. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

SHRI SANJIV CHANDRAVADAN SHAH,VADODARA vs. TEH DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

search & seizure proceedings u/s. 132 of the Act was not substantiate the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(11C) as the assessee was not satisfying all the conditions as laid down u/s. 80IB(11C) of the Act.” The grounds raised by the Assessee in its Cross Objections are as under : - IT(SS)A Nos.482 & 483/Ahd/2019, ITA Nos.1522 & 1512/Ahd/2019& CO Nos.8

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), VADODARA vs. SHRI SANJIV CHANDRAVADAN SHAH, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and ITA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

search & seizure proceedings u/s. 132 of the Act was not substantiate the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(11C) as the assessee was not satisfying all the conditions as laid down u/s. 80IB(11C) of the Act.” The grounds raised by the Assessee in its Cross Objections are as under : - IT(SS)A Nos.482 & 483/Ahd/2019, ITA Nos.1522 & 1512/Ahd/2019& CO Nos.8

M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

Seizure actions, voluminous documents are seized which may also include numerous loose papers, diaries, note pads which may contain rough calculations, vague notings, scribbling and jottings etc. There may be instances where such documents may be also non- speaking so far as that ITA nos.2213/AHD/2018 with 3 others Asstt. Year 2011-12 18 such documents may not decipher with certainty

M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

Seizure actions, voluminous documents are seized which may also include numerous loose papers, diaries, note pads which may contain rough calculations, vague notings, scribbling and jottings etc. There may be instances where such documents may be also non- speaking so far as that ITA nos.2213/AHD/2018 with 3 others Asstt. Year 2011-12 18 such documents may not decipher with certainty

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment years after the search u/s. 132 is conducted in the case of the assessee, and that if the interpretation of the Id. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to assess such income in the 153A proceedings, while no other parallel proceedings to assess such other income

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment\nyears after the search u/s.132 is conducted in the case of the assessee, and\nthat if the interpretation of the Id. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to\nassess such income in the 153A proceedings, while no other parallel\nproceedings to assess such other income

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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. 26. We also note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sakuntala Devi Khetan reported in 33 taxmann.com 98 has held that there cannot be any addition

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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. 26. We also note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sakuntala Devi Khetan reported in 33 taxmann.com 98 has held that there cannot be any addition

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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. 26. We also note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sakuntala Devi Khetan reported in 33 taxmann.com 98 has held that there cannot be any addition

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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. 26. We also note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sakuntala Devi Khetan reported in 33 taxmann.com 98 has held that there cannot be any addition