YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment order passed under section 147 were without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. 5.1 It was contended that a search and seizure

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

In the result Revenue’s Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

seizure action, no formal agreement for purchase of land has been entered into or any approvals for construction activities have been received by the assessee. 9.6. Further the Assessee has suo-moto, in its Returns of Income and Computation of Income filed for the Asst. Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 [copies placed at page nos. 13 to 72], included

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

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

In the result Revenue's Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd\nShri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

seizure action, no\nformal agreement for purchase of land has been entered into or any\napprovals for construction activities have been received by the\nassessee.\n9. 6. Further the Assessee has suo-moto, in its Returns of Income\nand Computation of Income filed for the Asst. Years 2021-22 and\n2022-23 [copies placed at page nos.13 to 72], included

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.

seizure from the searched person belonged to the other ITA No. 1132/Ahd/2014 (Satya Sankalp Villa (Ellisbridge) P. Ltd. vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2004-05 - 10 – person and transmitting such material to the Assessing Officer of the other person was mandatory. Such satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the “searched person” in this case and the documents were transmitted

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)., AHMEDABAD vs. PAWAN SATYNARAYAN JALAN, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

reassess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. IT(ss)A No.134/Ahd/2021 & ITA No. 182/Ahd/2021 & 204/Ahd/2021

PAWAN SATYNARAYAN JALAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

reassess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. IT(ss)A No.134/Ahd/2021 & ITA No. 182/Ahd/2021 & 204/Ahd/2021

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

search under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A of the Act was executed. The learned AR further submitted that search in case of appellants has been conducted on 10thMarch 2015 and 12th March 2015 and the same was lasted as on 13th March 2015 at various premises of the appellant. Accordingly, the ld. AR contended that the time

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

search under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A of the Act was executed. The learned AR further submitted that search in case of appellants has been conducted on 10thMarch 2015 and 12th March 2015 and the same was lasted as on 13th March 2015 at various premises of the appellant. Accordingly, the ld. AR contended that the time

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

search under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A of the Act was executed. The learned AR further submitted that search in case of appellants has been conducted on 10thMarch 2015 and 12th March 2015 and the same was lasted as on 13th March 2015 at various premises of the appellant. Accordingly, the ld. AR contended that the time

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

search under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A of the Act was executed. The learned AR further submitted that search in case of appellants has been conducted on 10thMarch 2015 and 12th March 2015 and the same was lasted as on 13th March 2015 at various premises of the appellant. Accordingly, the ld. AR contended that the time

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

search under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A of the Act was executed. The learned AR further submitted that search in case of appellants has been conducted on 10thMarch 2015 and 12th March 2015 and the same was lasted as on 13th March 2015 at various premises of the appellant. Accordingly, the ld. AR contended that the time