MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

deposits claimed to be from available cash generated from cash sales, • Inter-bank transfers of Rs.8,80,00,000/-. 52. These documents and explanations were furnished only before the CIT(A) and were not available to the Assessing Officer at the time of reassessment

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

deposits claimed to be from available cash generated from cash sales, • Inter-bank transfers of Rs.8,80,00,000/-. 52. These documents and explanations were furnished only before the CIT(A) and were not available to the Assessing Officer at the time of reassessment

PARESHKUMAR PUNAMCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. The assessee did not participated in re-assessment proceedings, which led to the additions being made by the AO to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 29,93,000/- in the hands of the assessee towards undisclosed cash deposits

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

reassessment proceedings held that the cash deposits of Rs.3,17,82,256/= and cheque clearing and transfer entries of Rs.52

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR 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)

reassessment proceedings held that the cash deposits of Rs.3,17,82,256/= and cheque clearing and transfer entries of Rs.52

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)

reassessment proceedings held that the cash deposits of Rs.3,17,82,256/= and cheque clearing and transfer entries of Rs.52

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)

reassessment proceedings held that the cash deposits of Rs.3,17,82,256/= and cheque clearing and transfer entries of Rs.52

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN 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)

reassessment proceedings held that the cash deposits of Rs.3,17,82,256/= and cheque clearing and transfer entries of Rs.52

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

reassessment proceedings held that the cash deposits of Rs.3,17,82,256/= and cheque clearing and transfer entries of Rs.52

ANISH RAJNIKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

cash deposit of Rs. 21,51,200/- , this case requires to be reopened u/s 147 of the Act.” 4. Further, the statutory notice(s) u/s.142(1) of the Act were also issued by the AO to assessee , from time to time, I.T.A No. 200/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 4 Anish Rajnikant Shah v. ITO during the course of reassessment

ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly accepted in principle, and the issue is restored to the\nAssessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of directions\nabove.\n25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee ...

cash deposits, and since\nthe assessee had not maintained books of account or shown any\nloan entries therein, the addition was ultimately made under\nsection 68 treating the deposits as unexplained. Thus, the\nsubstance of the addition corresponds to the issue flagged in the\nreopening, and the reassessment

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. Secondly, on facts which are on record before us, the assessee had not filed it’s return of income for the impugned assessment year. However, from the information available on record, the Assessing Officer came to know that there were cash deposits

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. Secondly, on facts which are on record before us, the assessee had not filed it’s return of income for the impugned assessment year. However, from the information available on record, the Assessing Officer came to know that there were cash deposits

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. Secondly, on facts which are on record before us, the assessee had not filed it’s return of income for the impugned assessment year. However, from the information available on record, the Assessing Officer came to know that there were cash deposits

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. Secondly, on facts which are on record before us, the assessee had not filed it’s return of income for the impugned assessment year. However, from the information available on record, the Assessing Officer came to know that there were cash deposits

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. Secondly, on facts which are on record before us, the assessee had not filed it’s return of income for the impugned assessment year. However, from the information available on record, the Assessing Officer came to know that there were cash deposits

ASHISH TILAKCHANDRA BHATT,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2012-13 Ashish Tilakchandra Bhatt The Dcit, Opp: Kailash Bhumi Vs Cir. Gandhinagar Borsad Chokdi Road Anand 388 001, Gujarat. Pan : Akwpb2390L (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ld.Ar : Revenue By Shri Ravindra, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2025

reassessment order be cancelled. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Id NFAC/ CIT(A) also erred both in law and on facts in not adjudicating ground No: 2 & 3 so as to allow Indexed Cost in respect of property sold while computing 2 long term capital gain .It be so held now and Indexation be directed

GHANSHYAMBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated is that there was cash deposit in the Bank account and that such cash deposit is "ESCAPED