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

2. Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in law and on facts in revising order which is merged with order of CIT (A) and accordingly revision action is without jurisdiction as per Explanation 1(c) to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tax Effect: N.A. being a technical ground. 3. Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in law and on facts

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

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

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

2), Ahmedabad i.e. within the same city itself. 11. Further, we are also not able to place reliance on the judicial precedent cited by the Counsel for the assessee for two reasons. Firstly, the ITAT in the decision cited by the assessee did not have any opportunity of analyzing the language of Section

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

2), Ahmedabad i.e. within the same city itself. 11. Further, we are also not able to place reliance on the judicial precedent cited by the Counsel for the assessee for two reasons. Firstly, the ITAT in the decision cited by the assessee did not have any opportunity of analyzing the language of Section

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

2), Ahmedabad i.e. within the same city itself. 11. Further, we are also not able to place reliance on the judicial precedent cited by the Counsel for the assessee for two reasons. Firstly, the ITAT in the decision cited by the assessee did not have any opportunity of analyzing the language of Section

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

2), Ahmedabad i.e. within the same city itself. 11. Further, we are also not able to place reliance on the judicial precedent cited by the Counsel for the assessee for two reasons. Firstly, the ITAT in the decision cited by the assessee did not have any opportunity of analyzing the language of Section

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

2), Ahmedabad i.e. within the same city itself. 11. Further, we are also not able to place reliance on the judicial precedent cited by the Counsel for the assessee for two reasons. Firstly, the ITAT in the decision cited by the assessee did not have any opportunity of analyzing the language of Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this