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

2) provides that any admitted tax paid in pursuance of section 140A(1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards the regular assessment under section 143 or section 144. It is pertinent to note that section 140A(1) deals with a return required to be furnished under section 139 or section 148. That makes the provision clear that

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?

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

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceeding by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.06.2021. Thereafter, as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022) dated 04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, the order under

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceeding by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.06.2021. Thereafter, as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022) dated 04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, the order under

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

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

reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business

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

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

reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business

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

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

reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business

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

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

reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business

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

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

reassessment. However, despite issuance of multiple statutory notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) through the Income Tax Business

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment notice\nunder Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving\nunder the Income Tax Act read with TOLA and that all notices issued\nbeyond the surviving period were time barred and liable to be set\naside. This time-line was also demonstrated in para 112 of the order with\nan illustration. The Apex Court had held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

section 143(2) of the Act for framing a valid assessment. 14. Undoubtedly, courts in a number of decisions have held the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act to be a mandatory requirement of law. The Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

section 143(2) of the Act for framing a valid assessment. 14. Undoubtedly, courts in a number of decisions have held the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act to be a mandatory requirement of law. The Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT

NA ROTO MACHINE & MOULDS INDIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment notice u/s 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA and that all notices issued beyond the surviving period were time barred and liable to be set aside. This time-line was also demonstrated in para 112 of the order with an illustration. In the present case, the original

PRAKASH AMARLAL DOULATANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 970/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Prakash Amarlal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward -3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Doulatani Vs. 16/318, Satyagrah Chhavni, Near Bhavnirjar, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaspd3727B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vihar Soni, A.R. Assessee By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 30/01/2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/01/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Arising Out Of The Order Dated 22.11.2018 Passed By The Ito, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Whereby & Wherunder The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of ‘On Money’ Has Been Confirmed.

148 of the Act. 5.3.2 Though no specific notice was required u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, as noted above, the questionnaire dated 08.11.2018 provided the appellant specific opportunity to explain the details of transactions showing in J.P.Group by seeking documentary evidence and details.” 8. In this regard, we have considered the judgment passed by the subsequent judgment