THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

153,\nwhere the Assess Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article thing or books of account or\ndocuments seized or requisitioned belongs belong to a person other\nthan the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account\nor documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over\nto the Assessing Officer

THE UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION ,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

153,\nwhere the Assess Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article thing or books of account or\ndocuments seized or requisitioned belongs belong to a person other\nthan the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account\nor documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over\nto the Assessing Officer

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

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

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

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 263 to us, appears to be a plausible explanation, and there is no doubt that in the consequent assessment, the assessee was assessed multiple times to its returned income, which forced him into action and he came to the consult another legal adviser on whose advise the present appeal was filed before us. The delay in filing of appeal

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

153 A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec. 153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

153 A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec. 153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess

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.

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

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.

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

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.

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 10 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G Block, Taxation)-1, Plot No. C-60, Bnadra Kurla Ahmedabad Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DR Date of Hearing 27.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED, MONTECARLO HOUSE, SINDHU BHAWA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

153,66,29,467/- which violates the explanation below section (13) to Section 801A as the assessee has worked as a contractor not developer. 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that after the amended provisions of the section

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED , SINDHU BHAWAN ROAD, BODAKDEV

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

153,66,29,467/- which violates the explanation below section (13) to Section 801A as the assessee has worked as a contractor not developer. 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that after the amended provisions of the section

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

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