GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

10,960.00 was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

10,960.00 was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

26,449/-\nRs.10,47,988/-\nNIL\nRs.3,96,515/-\nRs.3,77,60,000/-\nRs.3,67,60,000/-\n147r.w.s.144C(13)\n06-01-2023\nRs.3,67,60,000/-\nITA Nos.105 & 106/Ahd/2023\nRajendra Manganbhai Patel vs. ACIT\nAsst. Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16\n3\nFinal Assessed Income\nRs.3,85,48,052/- Rs.3,68,40,733/-\n3.\nAs the assessee was not satisfied with

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

26,449/-\nRs.10,47,988/-\nNIL\nRs.3,96,515/-\nRs.3,77,60,000/-\nRs.3,67,60,000/-\n147r.w.s.144C(13)\n06-01-2023\nRs.3,67,60,000/-\nITA Nos.105 & 106/Ahd/2023\nRajendra Manganbhai Patel vs. ACIT\nAsst. Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16\n3\nFinal Assessed Income\nRs.3,85,48,052/- Rs.3,68,40,733/-\n3. As the assessee was not satisfied with

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26. If the contention of the assessee that even after introduction of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, the situation has not 15 I.T.A No. 339/Ahd/2022 & CO 29/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. ACIT vs. NK Proteins Ltd. & NK Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT undergone any material change is accepted, the question that immediately would come

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

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

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

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

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

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

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

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

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

10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10,26,63,022-Rs. 1,74,52,714) u/5.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act on account of receipt of on money in Dreamland and Sicilia Projects. 2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in giving the benefit of telescoping of income disclosed under IDS, 2016 against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10,26,63,022-Rs. 1,74,52,714) u/5.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act on account of receipt of on money in Dreamland and Sicilia Projects. 2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in giving the benefit of telescoping of income disclosed under IDS, 2016 against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10,26,63,022-Rs. 1,74,52,714) u/5.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act on account of receipt of on money in Dreamland and Sicilia Projects. 2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in giving the benefit of telescoping of income disclosed under IDS, 2016 against

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10,26,63,022-Rs. 1,74,52,714) u/5.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act on account of receipt of on money in Dreamland and Sicilia Projects. 2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in giving the benefit of telescoping of income disclosed under IDS, 2016 against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

10. By an order dated 14.08.2018, the respondent disposed of the objections raised by the petitioner stating that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in the name of the deceased as the department was not aware of the death of the assessee. It is only when the legal heir Shri Chandreshbhai Jayantilal Patel (the petitioner herein