THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 26th June 2018, was not a result of any overpayment of advance tax or self- assessment tax. Instead, the refund is directly linked to the excess The Kalupur Commercial Co.op. Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 6– payment arising from the final demand determination, making the case fall

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

156 taxmann.com 75), where it has been held that once the repayment of the loan is established and the transaction is routed through proper banking channels, no addition ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO ITO vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF Asst. Years –2014-15 to 2016-17 - 22– under section

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

156 taxmann.com 75), where it has been held that once the repayment of the loan is established and the transaction is routed through proper banking channels, no addition ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO ITO vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF Asst. Years –2014-15 to 2016-17 - 22– under section

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

156 taxmann.com 75), where it has been held that once the repayment of the loan is established and the transaction is routed through proper banking channels, no addition ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO ITO vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF Asst. Years –2014-15 to 2016-17 - 22– under section

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

156 taxmann.com 75), where it has been held that once the repayment of the loan is established and the transaction is routed through proper banking channels, no addition ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO ITO vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF Asst. Years –2014-15 to 2016-17 - 22– under section

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

156 taxmann.com 75), where it has been held that once the repayment of the loan is established and the transaction is routed through proper banking channels, no addition ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF vs. ITO ITO vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel-HUF Asst. Years –2014-15 to 2016-17 - 22– under section

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

156 were part of the reassessment order, as could be seen from the assessment order at para 6 of the reassessment order:- “6. Assessed u/s 147 read with section

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

156 were part of the reassessment order, as could be seen from the assessment order at para 6 of the reassessment order:- “6. Assessed u/s 147 read with section

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

156 taxmann.com 517 (Guj.) 2. Surani Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. ITO, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 139 (Guj.) (D) AO had not quantified amount of escapement of income chargeable to tax – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that no notice u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued beyond four years unless the income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment