VIPUL KAMAL PRAKASH SUD,SIDHPUR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

151. Room No.509, (Gujarat) Aaykar Bhavan (Vejalpur), Vs. [PAN – ALUPS 8500 J] Nr. Sachin Tower, Ahmedabad – 380 015. (Gujarat) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs Revenue by Shri R. P. Rastogi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.10.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House. Therefore, the case of the Revenue is that effectively, the search was not done at a premises of a “third party” but at the corporate office / main office of one of the key partners of the assessee firm itself and on the basis of search at the premises of the key partner of the assessee firm, the incriminating documents

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House. Therefore, the case of the Revenue is that effectively, the search was not done at a premises of a “third party” but at the corporate office / main office of one of the key partners of the assessee firm itself and on the basis of search at the premises of the key partner of the assessee firm, the incriminating documents

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House. Therefore, the case of the Revenue is that effectively, the search was not done at a premises of a “third party” but at the corporate office / main office of one of the key partners of the assessee firm itself and on the basis of search at the premises of the key partner of the assessee firm, the incriminating documents

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House. Therefore, the case of the Revenue is that effectively, the search was not done at a premises of a “third party” but at the corporate office / main office of one of the key partners of the assessee firm itself and on the basis of search at the premises of the key partner of the assessee firm, the incriminating documents

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House. Therefore, the case of the Revenue is that effectively, the search was not done at a premises of a “third party” but at the corporate office / main office of one of the key partners of the assessee firm itself and on the basis of search at the premises of the key partner of the assessee firm, the incriminating documents

DILIP MOHANDAS DEVANI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above directions

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2:1, corresponding of the appellant’s and Anju Devani’s respective shares in the sale proceeds of the old property. The deduction should be allowed in this ratio, as the investment was made entirely out of the sale proceeds of the old property.” 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee has filed an application for condonation

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

151\nof the Act.\"\n26.\nConsequent to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, dated 04.05.2022 and\nin compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court,\nproceedings under the new provisions of law as prescribed in\nSection 148A of the Act were initiated by issuing notice\nu/s.148A

DIPIKABEN KANIYALAL PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Principal Commissioner Of Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Income-Tax, Prop. Of Shivam Roadways, बनाम/ Ahmedabad-3, 17, Bhuyangdev Society, Sola Ahmedabad Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad, Vs. Gujarat -380061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shailesh Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

151. [2] That the learned principal Commissioner of Income tax, Ahmedabad-3, has erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, thereby, holding that the assessment has framed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of the revenue and further erred in setting aside the order dated 26/03/2022

VAISHALI BABUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

151 where it was held as under: 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 14-3-2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15-3-2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with

ANKUR CHANDRAKANT PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

house property, proprietary business in the name of M/s. Tractor Trading Co. and other sources. For the year under consideration, the Assessee has filed his original return of income on 29.10.2019 showing total income of Rs.11,77,940/-. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act as per notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2023. The Assessing

SATYA SANKALP VILLA (ELLISBRIDGE) PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1132/Ahd/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05) िनधा"रण वष" Satya Sankalp Villa The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ward – 8(1), Ahmedabad (Ellisbridge) P. Ltd. Vs. Dharmadev House, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics2707B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 16.01.2014 For A.Y. 2004-05. 2. This Is Second Round Of Appeal Before This Tribunal. Before We Adjudicate The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal, It Will Be Relevant To Recapitulate The Facts Of The Case.

House, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAICS2707B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/06/2024 24/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

House, Nr.Shree Vs Ahmedabad Krishna Centre, Navrangpura Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat, India PAN: AADCS0472N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, A.R. Revenue Represented : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 18-09-2024 Date of pronouncement : 29-10-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These cross appeals are filed by the Revenue and the Assessee

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

House, Nr.Shree Vs Ahmedabad Krishna Centre, Navrangpura Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat, India PAN: AADCS0472N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, A.R. Revenue Represented : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 18-09-2024 Date of pronouncement : 29-10-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These cross appeals are filed by the Revenue and the Assessee

ASHOK KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INT. TAX, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

2. The DRP and AO failed to appreciate that the total investment made by the Appellant in a residential property is amounting to Rs.1,73,25,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.84,93,235/- was paid from housing loan taken by the Appellant and balance amount of Rs.88,31,765/- was paid through the remittances into the Appellant

INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEEPA RAJENDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 of 10 ITA No.2205/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.1,97,483/-. An information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who had entered into suspicious transaction

INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. DEEPA RAJENDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 of 10 ITA No.2205/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.1,97,483/-. An information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who had entered into suspicious transaction

DIPAK BALUBHAI PATEL - HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

House Property and Income from Other Sources. The assessee filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on 11-08-2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,73,170/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee in his Account with Bank of Baroda deposited a sum of Rs.10