ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

reassessment, as the case maybe, under the said sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be extended by twelve months. Section 153 of the Act does not permit passing any order after the expiry of 33 months from the end of the assessment year i.e. AY 2016-17 in the present case. Therefore, the time limit for completing assessment

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143." 9. In the instant case, we notice that both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have held that the procedure prescribed of issuance of notice under section 143(2) has not been followed at all. This realm of fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. In view

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143." 9. In the instant case, we notice that both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have held that the procedure prescribed of issuance of notice under section 143(2) has not been followed at all. This realm of fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. In view

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

3) of section 143. There is an omission of sub-section (1) of section 143. This Chapter clearly prescribes its own return, form of own methodology for computation of income but falls back on the provisions of sections 142, 143 and 144 etc., only for procedural aspect. If the proviso is made applicable, then a clash erupts between the provisions

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

3) of section 143. There is an omission of sub-section (1) of section 143. This Chapter clearly prescribes its own return, form of own methodology for computation of income but falls back on the provisions of sections 142, 143 and 144 etc., only for procedural aspect. If the proviso is made applicable, then a clash erupts between the provisions

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

3) of the Act. However, fact remains that the assessee duly filed all the Books of Account before the Ld. AO during the original assessment proceeding which is very much evident from the reply dated 11.08.2014 made by the assessee in response to the notice under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue could not dispute

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

3) of the Act. However, fact remains that the assessee duly filed all the Books of Account before the Ld. AO during the original assessment proceeding which is very much evident from the reply dated 11.08.2014 made by the assessee in response to the notice under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue could not dispute

SANGATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

142(1) of the Act, in compliance to which the assessee submitted that they had withdrawn Rs.3,14,600/- from bank account held with Siddhi Coop Bank Ltd vide cheque No. 14887 and the said amount was paid in cash to the jeweller as the party insisted for cash payment. The assessee further contended that the seller is a Sangath

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 of 'any other income' which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment, cannot be made. 101. In the light of the above stated discussion, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on hand. From the reasons recorded we note that the AO has proposed the additions in the reasons recorded as detailed under: On the basis of analysis base

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. DIT, (INTL. TAXN.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

142(1) of the Act with respect to the deduction claimed under section 42 of the Act. The queries raised by the AO were duly answered by the assessee vide letter dated 29th September 2005as evident from the details placed on pages 18 to 20 of the paper book. Thus the AO during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT.,(INTNL.TAXN.), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

142(1) of the Act with respect to the deduction claimed under section 42 of the Act. The queries raised by the AO were duly answered by the assessee vide letter dated 29th September 2005as evident from the details placed on pages 18 to 20 of the paper book. Thus the AO during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3

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)

3) of the Act was already passed on 29-12-2011 wherein after detailed discussion AO has made disallowance under Section 14A at Rs 1,13,521/-. The discussion was made at para 8 of the order. The reassessment notice is issued only for re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A made in Assessment Order. It is an undisputed fact

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?

3) of the Act. The contention of the revenue that in any view of the matter, section 292B would apply to the facts of this case is not acceptable. A notice issued under section 143(2) which gives jurisdiction to complete the assessment having been issued in the name of the dead person

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Atul Hiralal Shah, D.C.I.T, 8, Amrashirish Bungalows, Vs. Central Circle-1(2), Near Prahladnagar Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aljps4966M

3) The provisions of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment or reassessment made before the 1st day of June, 2016: 1[Provided that where a notice under section 153A or section 153C has been issued prior

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

142(1) is affixed where and on what place and on what date and that it is not known whether the affixture is made as per Civil Procedure Code as provided in Section 282(l)(b). (e) On what date the Notice under Section 133(6) was served to the Court Receiver and that on what date

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

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

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment

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

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

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment

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

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

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment

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

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

142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform, there was no compliance from the assessee. It is recorded that all communications were dispatched to the email address of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant, which was no longer active. As a result, there was no effective representation or submission from the assessee during the reassessment