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

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

reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013–14

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

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

reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013–14

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

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

reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013–14

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

14)(iii) of the Act.\n3. Initially, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with\nsection 147 of the Act on 23.01.2013 accepting the returned income.\nSubsequently, based on information received from the Investigation Wing,\nincluding the assessee's own statement recorded under section 131 of the Act\nadmitting receipt of cash on sale of land, the Assessing

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

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 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

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 order on 01.03.2023. There is no finding by the PCIT that any of the particulars furnished were false, misleading, or not examined by the AO. 10.2 We also take note of the legal position settled by judicial authority, including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Jitindar Singh Chadha

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 order on 01.03.2023. There is no finding by the PCIT that any of the particulars furnished were false, misleading, or not examined by the AO. 10.2 We also take note of the legal position settled by judicial authority, including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Jitindar Singh Chadha

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

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

section 148 were issued on 30.03.2021 for both A.Y. 2013–14 and A.Y. 2014–15. In response, the assessee complied and reassessment

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

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

section 148 were issued on 30.03.2021 for both A.Y. 2013–14 and A.Y. 2014–15. In response, the assessee complied and reassessment

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

section 148 were issued on 30.03.2021 for both A.Y. 2013–14 and A.Y. 2014–15. In response, the assessee complied and reassessment

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

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

section 148 were issued on 30.03.2021 for both A.Y. 2013–14 and A.Y. 2014–15. In response, the assessee complied and reassessment

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

14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that provision of subsection (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