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

133(6) of the Act and made disallowances of claim of the assessee. In this regard we find that the learned CIT(A) has given flawless finding that after resolution of dispute of jurisdiction over issuance of BU permission, the AMC has issued such permission for remaining units to the assessee and certified that the project was completed before

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

reassessment and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after considering the entire bank credits of Rs.123.12 crores. Pursuant to this direction, the case was again taken up in faceless proceedings and several notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee again confined himself only to raising objections

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

reassessment. A notice issued under section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection. Therefore, where the legal representative does not waive his right to a notice under section 148 of the Act, it cannot be said that the notice issued against

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2013-14 were bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) invalidation pertained to AY 2017-18. Consequently, additions under Section 69A and disallowance of expenses were also rendered infructuous.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "147", "148", "142(1)", "133

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment'. The term 'escaped assessment' includes both 'non- assessment' as well as 'under assessment'. Income is said to have 'escaped assessment' within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee in the relevant year

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment'. The term 'escaped assessment' includes both 'non- assessment' as well as 'under assessment'. Income is said to have 'escaped assessment' within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee in the relevant year

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is A.Y. 2008-09 17 that the satisfaction recorded should be 'independent' and not 'borrowed

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

reassessment proceedings. The DR emphasized that\nthe proprietor of the said concern could not be traced during field inquiries\nand failed to respond to notices issued under section 133

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

reassessment proceedings. The DR emphasized that the proprietor of the said concern could not be traced during field inquiries and failed to respond to notices issued under section 133

ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly accepted in principle, and the issue is restored to the\nAssessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of directions\nabove.\n25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee ...

133(6) of the Act to the Branch\nManager of the ICICI Bank Ltd. The AO proceeded to complete\nthe reassessment ex-parte on 13.12.2017. In the reassessment\norder, the Assessing Officer made a substantive addition of\nRs.16,94,93,035/- under section

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year