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

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1, we note that the power of assessment- reassessment are conferred on the Assessing Officer by the provisions of section 147/148 of the Act. But such power is subject to the certain conditions laid down under section 147/148/149/151 of the Act. One of the very first condition is that before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment

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

1). We find that the Assessing Officer had access to the relevant material and formed a view after examining the explanation of the assessee. Merely because a different view could be taken or further inquiries could have been made does not justify revision under section 263. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex v. CIT (supra) held

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHWETA MANISH JAIN, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

173 taxmann.com 399 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the Ahmedabad ITAT held that where Assessing Officer made addition under section 69C of the Act on ground that assessee had paid interest in cash to a third-party, since said addition was made solely on basis of unsigned Excel sheets recovered from premises of third party, without any further corroborative evidence, same

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

DEVENDERSINGH SAJUBHAI JADEJA,,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 464/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Devendersingh Sajubhai Jadeja, Income Tax Officer, C/101, Baroda Skyz, Vs. Ward-1(2)(1), Opp. Adarsh Duplex, Vadodara. Gorwa Road, Vadodara-390022. Pan: Aelpj2883F

reassessment are not fulfilled in the case of appellant. 2. The Id.CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 57,00,000/- u/s.69 for purchase of Agricultural land without properly appreciating and considering the facts of the appellant. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in not considering the additional evidence furnished

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

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

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