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)

173/- C. Capital Gain – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs. 18,07,02,90,489/- Brought forward losses of Rs. 2,41,44,65,028/- Rs. Nil for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

reassessment order.\n7. Ld. Counsel Shri Jaimin Shah appearing for the assessee\nsubmitted that the penalty proceedings are independent and\ndistinct from the assessment proceedings and relied upon Delhi\nHigh Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa reported in\n[1982] 133 ITR 7 wherein it was held that failure to initiate or\nwrongful initiation

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order, which is clearly an erroneous and prejudicial order to the interest of Revenue, wherein Ld. PCIT has invoked the power u/s. 263 of the Act. 9. Ld. Counsel reliance on Co-ordinate Bench decision of Mumbai in the case of M/s. G M Builders is a case where non-filing return is pursuant to a partnership dispute between

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

173 taxmann.com 103 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the power under section 263 cannot be exercised merely to conduct roving inquiries in the absence of a definite finding. The relevant para is reproduced here for the sake of ready reference – 5. In the given facts, the assertion by the Revenue that inquiry and verification

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the interests of justice

reassessment proceedings,\nthe assessee was issued several notices under Section 142(1) of the Act calling\nfor details of the sale transaction, computation of capital gains, and supporting\ndocuments. In response, the assessee initially contended that he had purchased\nagricultural land on 12.04.2010 for Rs.4,03,650/- and sold the same on\n05.07.2011 for Rs.10,00,000/-. The assessee argued

GUJARAT STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

reassessment by making an addition of Rs. 38,57,588/- under section 69A of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, observing that no compliance was made by the assessee despite multiple opportunities. 5.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was entitled not to file return of income as the income

GUJARAT STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

reassessment by making an addition of Rs. 38,57,588/- under section 69A of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, observing that no compliance was made by the assessee despite multiple opportunities. 5.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was entitled not to file return of income as the income

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FALGUNI SURYAKANT THAKAR , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum appeal in IT(SS)A No

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

173 taxmann.com 575 (SC) [26-03-2025]. This has been discussed and relied upon by Ld. ITAT, Ahmedabad in the decision in the matter of IT(SS)(A) No. 12/Ahd/2024 Ushaben Jayantilal Patel vs the ITO. The relevant extract are as follows: "8. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the materials available on record. There

AMISH MANUBHAI BRAHMBHATT ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act and such escaped income exceeded Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. In response, the assessee a return on 19.04.2019 declaring the very same total income of Rs.3,62,370/-. The assessee was issued a show cause notice on 28.11.2019 why not to make an addition of Rs.10,07,173/- on the transaction carried

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

GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings while that pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in ITA No. 2538/Ahd/2014 & 2632/Ahd/2015 arose against orders passed in regular assessment proceedings. She thereafter stated that the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No. 2538/Ahd/2014 was the lead case and therefore needed to be argued first. Accordingly the appeal

GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings while that pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in ITA No. 2538/Ahd/2014 & 2632/Ahd/2015 arose against orders passed in regular assessment proceedings. She thereafter stated that the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No. 2538/Ahd/2014 was the lead case and therefore needed to be argued first. Accordingly the appeal

GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings while that pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in ITA No. 2538/Ahd/2014 & 2632/Ahd/2015 arose against orders passed in regular assessment proceedings. She thereafter stated that the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No. 2538/Ahd/2014 was the lead case and therefore needed to be argued first. Accordingly the appeal

VIJAYBHAI LAXMICHAND DEMLA L/H OF LATE SHRI LAXMICHAND PAHLUMAL DEMLA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment was served only on one of them, proceedings were invalid in the absence of material to show that such legal representative represented the entire estate of the deceased with the consent, express or implied, of the other legal representatives. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Urjit B. Shah appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed