PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

section 12AA of the Act and also has got approval u/s 10(23C(vi) of the Act effective from A.Y.2015-16. It is also approved u/s 80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

section 12AA of the Act and also has got approval u/s 10(23C(vi) of the Act effective from A.Y.2015-16. It is also approved u/s 80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

section 12AA of the Act and also has got approval u/s 10(23C(vi) of the Act effective from A.Y.2015-16. It is also approved u/s 80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case

GMDC SCIENCE & RESEARCH CENTRE,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

5 years and further period of one year as provided under Section 11(3)(c) by employing language " .......during the period referred to in clause (a) of that sub-section [or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof.......shall be deemed to be the income of such person.....of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the period

GMDC SCIENCE & RESEARCH CENTRE,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

5 years and further period of one year as provided under Section 11(3)(c) by employing language " .......during the period referred to in clause (a) of that sub-section [or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof.......shall be deemed to be the income of such person.....of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the period

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(E) erred in fact and in law in invoking revision power u/s 263 of the Act on an issue of allowability of exemption u/s 11 of the Act despite the fact that proceeding u/s 263 cannot be initiated on debatable issue. Gujarat Technological University vs. CIT(E) Asst. Year

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

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

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential 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 action under section

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

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

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential 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 action under section

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

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

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential 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 action under section

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

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

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential 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 action under section

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

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

5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential 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 action under section

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?

reassessment. The court held that the petitioner's communication about the death of the assessee cannot be considered as participation in the proceedings, and thus, the notice issued under section 148 was deemed invalid. (ii) Vipin Walia v. Income-tax Officer [2016] 67 taxmanın.com 56 (Delhi) The High Court of Delhi dealt with a situation where a notice under

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)

5) r.w.s. 73 and section 40A(2)(b) of Rs.13,89,08,810/- is liable to deleted. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits of the case does not require adjudication, since the very reassessment itself is held invalid in the eyes of law. 10. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 11

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

5) of the Act under the normal provision of the IT Act and book profit at Rs.20,11,70,46,681/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Interest is charged under Section 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act as applicable after giving credit for taxes paid by the assessee. Relevant to mention that before the DPO, Panel-2, Mumbai

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

5) of section 23 was inserted by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01-04-2018. Therefore, such a provision is not applicable for the year under consideration. 15. The assessee further submitted that advance booking was received against unsold units. Accordingly, it has no right to let such unit on rent to other person. Hence no notional income from house

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

5) of section 23 was inserted by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01-04-2018. Therefore, such a provision is not applicable for the year under consideration. 15. The assessee further submitted that advance booking was received against unsold units. Accordingly, it has no right to let such unit on rent to other person. Hence no notional income from house

ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

5. As per the grounds of cross objection and assessee’s appeal, the assessee challenges the validity of the reassessment proceedings, contending that they are void ab initio due to a lack of jurisdiction. It is argued that the proceedings were initiated without fulfilling the statutory requirements, rendering all subsequent actions, including the reassessment order, illegal and unsustainable

SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

5. As per the grounds of cross objection and assessee’s appeal, the assessee challenges the validity of the reassessment proceedings, contending that they are void ab initio due to a lack of jurisdiction. It is argued that the proceedings were initiated without fulfilling the statutory requirements, rendering all subsequent actions, including the reassessment order, illegal and unsustainable