AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

2. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the LdAO\nconsciously and correctly invoked section 271AAC(1) in the\nreassessment order, but wrongly issued penalty notice\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, which is at best, a procedural defect that\ncould have been rectified by the AO himself invoking section 292B\nof the Act and thereafter

HARSHADKUMAR BHOGILAL RAVAL,UNJHA, DIST. MEHSANA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN, GUJARAT, PATAN, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

151 was granted by PCIT instead of JCIT. iv. The Act do not prescribe Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) for multiple defaults.” Harshadkumar Bhogilal Raval vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 5. Shri Divya S. Agarwal, the Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that the first notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was duly complied and an adjournment application

SHIVAM PRERNA INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. I.T.A No. 1431/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shivam Prerna Infrabuild vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assesse is a partnership firm engaged in the business

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Shri Navinchandra N Patel Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of "Trading of Land for project Development & in shares". The assessee had filed his return of income for the year under consideration

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

penalty proceedings\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n5. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) raising several grounds. The assessee challenged the\nvalidity of reopening under section 147 and issuance of notice under section\n148, contending that there was no escapement of income and that objections\nwere not disposed

DCIT, CC-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. GOLDMINE COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274. The assessed income was computed at Rs. 9,85,22,820/-. 9. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that - the valuation report on DCF was signed and certified by Apaji Amin & Co. LLP, an independent chartered accountant who was not the statutory auditor; DCIT

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

151 and section 153, where the\nAssessing Officer is satisfied that,—\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein,\nrelates to,\na person other than the person referred

DHARMENDRA RIKHAVCHAND SHAH, HUF,HIMATNAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT HURIS.THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2– 3. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 are bad in law being as the same is in violation of section 151A and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 which provides for Faceless Reassessment proceedings. 4. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short]. Remaining appeals are in relation to orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) in quantum proceedings for the impugned years. 2. We shall first be dealing with the appeals filed in quantum proceedings

THE ITO, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short]. Remaining appeals are in relation to orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) in quantum proceedings for the impugned years. 2. We shall first be dealing with the appeals filed in quantum proceedings

ABBASBHAI SAJAUDINBHAI BARAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in partly allowing the appeal by confirming the additions made by AO of Rs.12,21,480/- for other credits made in SB account with Bank of India, Pisawada Br. u/s 68 of the Act out of total addition of Rs.14,55,941/- made

VEENITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

151 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that at the time of recording the reason for satisfaction of Assessing Officer, there should be prima- facie some material on the basis of which, the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. It will be open

RATNADEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, OLD WARD 3(1)(3) NEW WARD3(1)(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

u/s. 147 based on incorrect, Invalid, insufficient and vague reasons recorded for reopening based on borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind.” ITA No.1490/Ahd/2025 for AY 2011-12 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Ratnadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the business of development and construction, filed its original return of income

RATNADEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, OLD WARD 3(1)(3), NEW WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

u/s. 147 based on incorrect, Invalid, insufficient and vague reasons recorded for reopening based on borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind.” ITA No.1490/Ahd/2025 for AY 2011-12 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Ratnadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the business of development and construction, filed its original return of income

BINDU DHARMESH BHATT,VADODARA vs. ASSTT.CIT., CIRCLE-1(3),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. Total tax effect 24,80,333/-” 3. The original return of income was filed

NIRMALADEVI SHREEGOPAL KANODIA,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

151 of the Act. 4. The assessee has filed her return of income on 03.01.2022 declaring total income of Rs.3.63,665/- in response to the notice u/s.148 of the act. Further, notice u/s.142(1), dated 16.11.2021, 24.12.2021, 03.01.2022 was issued calling for information. Reasons of re-opening was provided to the assessee vide this office letter dated 1.02.2022. Consequent