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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar Income Tax, Circle V/S. S.V. Road, Malad West International Taxation, Mumbai – 400 064 Vadodara Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee’S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

29-12-2022 - 06-01-2023 Additions Made by AO Rs. 3,79,69,033/- Rs. 3,67,60,000/- ITA Nos.105 & 106/Ahd/2023 Rajendra Manganbhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Final Assessed Income Rs. 3,85,48,052/- Rs. 3,68,40,733/- 3. As the assessee was not satisfied with the orders of AO passed

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. On behalf of the respondent, reliance was placed upon section 159 and section 292B read with section 292BB of the Act. Insofar as the provisions of section 159 of the Act are concerned, this court in the above decision has held that the same would not be applicable where the assessee had passed away and the notice

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

reassessment proceedings disclosed the following: (i) That Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. had received fees of Rs. 5,29,440/- under section 194J and commission/brokerage of Rs. 45,17,539/- under section 194H during the financial year 2010–11 relevant to A.Y. 2011– 12, aggregating to Rs. 50,46,979/-. IRM Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

10. On behalf of the respondent, reliance was placed upon section 159 and section 292B read with section 292BB of the Act. Insofar as the provisions of section 159 of the Act are concerned, this court in the above decision has held that the same would not be applicable where the assessee had passed away and the notice

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)

29-12-2011 wherein after detailed discussion AO has made disallowance under Section 14A at Rs 1,13,521/-. The discussion was made at para 8 of the order. The reassessment notice is issued only for re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A made in Assessment Order. It is an undisputed fact that the reassessment notice was issued

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

10. The learned AR on merit of the case submitted that there was no notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the AO and this fact can also be verified from the order sheet entry prepared by the AO. Thus in the absence of such notice, the entire assessment proceedings are null and void

THE DCIT (INT.TAXA.), VADODARA vs. SHRI AJOY KANAIYALAL KHANDHERIA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

29,780 3,04,78,540 6,78,08,320 Awarded by Court (Rs. 3385 per Sq. M.) Solatium 30% 5 1,11,98,934 91,43,562 2,03,42,496 12% Interest 6 69,06,009 56,38,530 1,25,44,539 (15/04/2002 to 31/10/2003, 18.5 months) 5,54,34,723 4,52,60,632 10

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

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

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

HIMANSHU DAKSHESHKUMAR KATWALA,KHAMBHAT ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

29,81,262/- under section 69A of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that these issues pertained to the original assessment order and could not be adjudicated in an appeal against the rectification order under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, these grounds were treated as not maintainable and were not adjudicated. 8. The assessee is in appeal before