AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

reassessment proceedings were framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 13th December 2017 after making any addition of Rs. 39,05,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee. It is necessary to clarify at this juncture that there was a mismatch in the amount recorded in the reasons for reopening

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

191 3,44,69,278 153A in Rs. Since the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal in part, the Revenue is in appeal(s) before us, and the assessee filed two appeals and Cross Objections. Following are the grounds: 3. Grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeals are as under: (a) In IT(SS)A No.2/Ahd/2021

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

reassessment proceedings and grants primacy to section 153C. As noted earlier, exercise of power under section 153C is governed without any stringent fetters of holding 'reason to believe' contemplated under section 147. Therefore, while exercise of overriding power under section 153C will render section 147 otiose, the converse case of clipping the powers available under section 147 in search cases

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

M/S. KOSA CONSTRUCTION,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, VADODARA

In the result, all the grounds appeal of the assessee are allowed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” 2. As the facts and issues involved in three appeals are similar, so, we take ITA No. 919/Ahd/2016 for assessment year 2007-08 as the lead case and its findings will be applicable to the other two appeal i.e. ITA Nos. 920 I.T.A

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

191 at page 195 head-note (v) are worth to be reproduced hereafter:- ITA Nos.1867/Ahd/2019 & 54/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Page 6 of 8 “That though the writ of prohibition or certiorari would not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts had power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

191 at page 195 head-note (v) are worth to be reproduced hereafter:- ITA Nos.1867/Ahd/2019 & 54/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Page 6 of 8 “That though the writ of prohibition or certiorari would not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts had power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction

PINKESHMUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Pinkeshkumar Melapchand Shah The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4) B-1, 1St Floor, Abhinandan Flat Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Kothari Tower Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad 380005.Gujarat. Pan : Aeaps 0609 D. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

191 (SC)], T.N. Subash Thangam v. ITO [156 taxmann.com 732 (Madras HC)], and Jyotsna Suri v. DCIT [61 ITD 139 (ITAT Delhi)] to conclude that the onus was on the assessee to establish the source of the cash deposits and to furnish supporting material at the appropriate stage. Consequently, the addition under section 69A was sustained, and the appeal

SANGATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

191 /TR 667(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that section 40(3) and Rule 6DD are intended to regulate the business transactions to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chance to use black money for business transactions. Again, the assessee has also relied upon some of the decisions but in view

AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.396/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 191, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Narol–Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 6019 P (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

191, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-1 v/s. Narol–Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AABCA 6019 P (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Divyakant Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not rightly responded the assessment and consequential passing the assessment order when the same is based on change of opinion as the original assessment was on the very same issue itself finalized. In fact, the second reopening is based

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not rightly responded the assessment and consequential passing the assessment order when the same is based on change of opinion as the original assessment was on the very same issue itself finalized. In fact, the second reopening is based

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not rightly responded the assessment and consequential passing the assessment order when the same is based on change of opinion as the original assessment was on the very same issue itself finalized. In fact, the second reopening is based

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not rightly responded the assessment and consequential passing the assessment order when the same is based on change of opinion as the original assessment was on the very same issue itself finalized. In fact, the second reopening is based

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2429, 2430 & 2431/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit (Exemptions) Surat Urban Development Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Authority(Suda) Suda Bhavan, Nr.Collector Office Nanpura, Surat 395 001 Pan : Aaals 0197 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prateek Tosniwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.S.A. Khan, Cit-Dr

sections 11 and 12 and determined its taxable income. Dissatisfied with order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has quashed the reassessments in all three years. Order of the ld.CIT(A) is verbatim same except variations of dates in all these three years. Therefore, for the facility of reference

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2429, 2430 & 2431/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit (Exemptions) Surat Urban Development Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Authority(Suda) Suda Bhavan, Nr.Collector Office Nanpura, Surat 395 001 Pan : Aaals 0197 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prateek Tosniwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.S.A. Khan, Cit-Dr

sections 11 and 12 and determined its taxable income. Dissatisfied with order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has quashed the reassessments in all three years. Order of the ld.CIT(A) is verbatim same except variations of dates in all these three years. Therefore, for the facility of reference

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2429, 2430 & 2431/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit (Exemptions) Surat Urban Development Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Authority(Suda) Suda Bhavan, Nr.Collector Office Nanpura, Surat 395 001 Pan : Aaals 0197 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prateek Tosniwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.S.A. Khan, Cit-Dr

sections 11 and 12 and determined its taxable income. Dissatisfied with order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has quashed the reassessments in all three years. Order of the ld.CIT(A) is verbatim same except variations of dates in all these three years. Therefore, for the facility of reference

M/S. SAGAR PROJECTS,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the IT(ss)A Nos.03 & 04/Ahd/2016 Sagar Corporation vs. DCIT (AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10) & Sagar Projects vs. DCIT (AY 2009-10) provisions of section 153A of the Act. In this case, books of account and documents were found and seized in the possession of M/s.Darshanam Life Space Pvt.Ltd. group. Thereafter