DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 148 is a fatal flaw that renders the reassessment proceedings invalid. 8. The DR stated that the assessee was given a period of 30 days to file the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 dated 31-3-2021 in which it was mentioned that the same issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the range head

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessments after issuing notices under section 148 and completing proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147. The basis for reopening in all years was the material seized during a search conducted in the Venus Group on 10.03.2015, particularly the seizure of a diary/cash book from the premises identified as the Terrace of Crystal Arcade/Crystal Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessments after issuing notices under section 148 and completing proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147. The basis for reopening in all years was the material seized during a search conducted in the Venus Group on 10.03.2015, particularly the seizure of a diary/cash book from the premises identified as the Terrace of Crystal Arcade/Crystal Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad

SHRI VISHAL JAGDISHBHAI MEHTA,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

166/- and agricultural income of " 86,500/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147 of the Act for the reason that on verification of records it is observed that the assessee was residing at Vadodara and he was owning a property at Mumbai which was lying vacant. The assessee had earned capital gains on sale

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

reassessment order valid.\n(v) The crucial link between the information made available to the Assessing Officer\nand the formation of the belief should be present. The reasons must be self evident, they\nmust speak for themselves.\n(vi) The tangible material which forms the basis for the belief that income has escaped\nassessment must be evident from a reading

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly kept open.\n10. All Revenue appeals fail on merits and are dismissed

reassessments after issuing notices under\nsection 148 and completing proceedings under section 143(3) read with\nsection 147. The basis for reopening in all years was the material seized\nduring a search conducted in the Venus Group on 10.03.2015, particularly\nthe seizure of a diary/cash book from the premises identified as the Terrace\nof Crystal Arcade/Crystal Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(E) erred in fact and in law in invoking revision power u/s 263 of the Act on an issue of allowability of exemption u/s 11 of the Act despite the fact that proceeding u/s 263 cannot be initiated on debatable issue. Gujarat Technological University vs. CIT(E) Asst. Year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD., AHMEDABAD vs. NEPTUNE OVERSEAS LTD., ASHRAM ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

166/- in the impugned year under consideration. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee-company claimed to have received an unsecured loan of ₹1.5 crore from Futuristics Metal Trading Pvt. Ltd. during the financial year ending 31.03.2011. However, the assessee failed to submit proper supporting documents like a signed confirmation with the company

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

166-173, 142, 9,00,000 63,86,339 54,86,339 and 143 (1 lac each) 3.2. Based on the above discrepancies, the AO made an addition of Rs.54,99,196/- to the assessee’s income, treating the difference as additional capital gains under Section 50C of the Act. Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani vs. The DCIT Asst. Year

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. PIYUSH SUBODHBHAI JHAVERI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

166 of the Paper Book. Further the Income Tax Returns filed by M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. for the Asst. Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are against total income of Rs. 1,73,55,274/- and Rs. 1,93,48,498/- respectively. The Revenue could not dispute the repayment of loans by the assessee through banking channels. 7. In similar

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SOHAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

166 of the Paper Book. Further the Income Tax Returns filed by M/s. Prraneta Industries Ltd. for the Asst. Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 are against total income of Rs. 1,73,55,274/- and Rs. 1,93,48,498/- respectively. The Revenue could not dispute the repayment of loans by the assessee through banking channels. 7. In similar