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

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

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

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

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

reassessments were quashed on the ground that the Assessing Officer had founded the reopening directly upon seized documents pertaining to the assessee that were recovered during a search conducted in another case. The Tribunal held that once such seized material “belonging to” or “relating to” the assessee exists, the only permissible course is to invoke section 153C and not section

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

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

reassessments were quashed on the ground that the Assessing Officer had founded the reopening directly upon seized documents pertaining to the assessee that were recovered during a search conducted in another case. The Tribunal held that once such seized material “belonging to” or “relating to” the assessee exists, the only permissible course is to invoke section 153C and not section

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

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

reassessments were quashed on the ground that the Assessing Officer had founded the reopening directly upon seized documents pertaining to the assessee that were recovered during a search conducted in another case. The Tribunal held that once such seized material “belonging to” or “relating to” the assessee exists, the only permissible course is to invoke section 153C and not section

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

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

reassessments were quashed on the ground that the Assessing Officer had founded the reopening directly upon seized documents pertaining to the assessee that were recovered during a search conducted in another case. The Tribunal held that once such seized material “belonging to” or “relating to” the assessee exists, the only permissible course is to invoke section 153C and not section

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

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

reassessments were quashed on the ground that the Assessing Officer had founded the reopening directly upon seized documents pertaining to the assessee that were recovered during a search conducted in another case. The Tribunal held that once such seized material “belonging to” or “relating to” the assessee exists, the only permissible course is to invoke section 153C and not section

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)

reassessment order is disallowance under Section 43(5) read with Section 73 for Rs 13,18,08,810/- which is not based

SHRI SHAMLAJI AAROGYA SEVA TRUST,GODHRA vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), SURAT AT -VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.138/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ Kanelav Road Surat At Vadodara Dhahod Road V/S. Godhra – 389 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Surat [Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Pcit Held That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 16.11.2019, Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of

13 of ITA No.138/Ahd/2022. Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust vs. The Pr.CIT(Central) Asst. Year : 2017-18 11 the Act and justifies the Ld.PCIT’s invocation of Section 263 of the Act. The Jodhpur Tribunal’s decision, therefore, does not apply to the current scenario where the trust itself is implicated in the misuse of its funds by booking bogus

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 :

reassessment. ITA Nos.2370, 2112, 2205 and 2206/Ahd/2018 & CO Nos.108 & 137/Ahd/2019 Shri Vighnaharta Reality Pvt.Ltd. & Shivganga Property Holders P.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 8.4. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the legal grounds raised by the assessee. The AO had sufficient grounds to reopen the assessment, and the CIT(A) correctly sustained the jurisdiction assumed

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 :

reassessment. ITA Nos.2370, 2112, 2205 and 2206/Ahd/2018 & CO Nos.108 & 137/Ahd/2019 Shri Vighnaharta Reality Pvt.Ltd. & Shivganga Property Holders P.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 8.4. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the legal grounds raised by the assessee. The AO had sufficient grounds to reopen the assessment, and the CIT(A) correctly sustained the jurisdiction assumed

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 :

reassessment. ITA Nos.2370, 2112, 2205 and 2206/Ahd/2018 & CO Nos.108 & 137/Ahd/2019 Shri Vighnaharta Reality Pvt.Ltd. & Shivganga Property Holders P.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 8.4. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the legal grounds raised by the assessee. The AO had sufficient grounds to reopen the assessment, and the CIT(A) correctly sustained the jurisdiction assumed

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

13 finding that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly relating to the income. 26. The learned CIT(A) after considering facts in totality quashed the assessment order framed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for various reasons. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) read as under: i. Barred

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

13 finding that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly relating to the income. 26. The learned CIT(A) after considering facts in totality quashed the assessment order framed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for various reasons. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) read as under: i. Barred

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)

reassessment proceedings, and which was never referred to or relied upon by the AO in the present assessee’s case, is clearly impermissible in law. The legal scope of “record” as defined in Explanation 1 to Section 263 confines itself to ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 13

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR 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)

reassessment proceedings, and which was never referred to or relied upon by the AO in the present assessee’s case, is clearly impermissible in law. The legal scope of “record” as defined in Explanation 1 to Section 263 confines itself to ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 13

TEJAS C. JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

Reassessment) Assessment year 2009-10 During year, assessee trust declared its income as NIL Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice for reason that assessee had deposited money with a company which was found to be specified person of assessee, thus, assessee was hit by section 13