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

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

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 12. The sub-Section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by the Finance

ITO, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT PIYUSHKUMAR PATEL, AHMEDABAD

reassessment proceedings and after considering the contentions made by the assessee to the effect that the impugned land did not qualify as capital asset u/s. 2(14) of the Act, since it was situated beyond 8 KM from the Ahmedabad Municipal Limits, the A.O. held that there was no truth in the contention of the assessee since the land

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

14 section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

14 section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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