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

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, 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

6 stands in the statute book till 31.03.2023, it can be seen that charge is created to tax the accumulation which was mis-utilised/mis- applied [Section 11(3)(a)] or accumulation which ceases to remain invested in form or modes specified in sub-section (5) [Section 11(3)(b)] or accumulation which was credited or paid to any trust

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

6 stands in the statute book till 31.03.2023, it can be seen that charge is created to tax the accumulation which was mis-utilised/mis- applied [Section 11(3)(a)] or accumulation which ceases to remain invested in form or modes specified in sub-section (5) [Section 11(3)(b)] or accumulation which was credited or paid to any trust

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, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid

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

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

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid

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

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

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid

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

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

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid

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

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

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

11. Section 270A provides for penalty for “under-reporting of income” [penalty at fifty per cent, of tax payable on such under-reported income, under sub Section (7)] and “misreporting of income” [under sub Section (8) and (9), Parulben Vijakumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 5– penalty at two hundred per cent, of tax payable on such income]. Penalty

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

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

6– the nature and source of such receipts. Relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts laying down that unexplained credits and money can be brought to tax when satisfactory explanation is not offered, he upheld the Assessing Officer’s action in treating Rs.169.79 crores as unexplained income and taxing the same under section 115BBE. He also

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 :

6. During the hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee contended that the AO has wrongly invoked reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act, instead of initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Act, which specifically governs cases where incriminating material is found during a search

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 :

6. During the hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee contended that the AO has wrongly invoked reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act, instead of initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Act, which specifically governs cases where incriminating material is found during a search

THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI VIGHNAHARTA REALITY 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 :

6. During the hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee contended that the AO has wrongly invoked reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act, instead of initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Act, which specifically governs cases where incriminating material is found during a search

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned AR for the assessee and the learned DR for the Revenue. We have also perused the reassessment orders dated 06.03.2023 and 01.03.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B by the Assessing Officer in the respective cases of Smt. Sejalben Chandrakantbhai Patel and Smt. Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel, as well