THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

197 ITR 439 wherein it was held as under: “A reading of sections 147 and 148 makes it clear that, at any rate, an assessment for the first time made by resort to section 147 is a regular assessment. Section 148 enjoins the Income-tax Officer before making an assessment under section 147 to serve a notice on the assessee

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2013-14 were bad in law and liable to be quashed, as the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) invalidation pertained to AY 2017-18. Consequently, additions under Section 69A and disallowance of expenses were also rendered infructuous.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "147", "148", "142(1)", "133(6)", "271(1)(b)", "44AD", "69A", "197

THE NANOL DUDH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR

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 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21. I.T.A No. 1749/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 2 The Nanol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Cooperative Bank

GHANSHYAMBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

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

1-10 Observational at Sr. page 5-6 para 7 that: "7. At the outset, we find once the Ld. AO having recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment and having formed a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, had not made any addition in the reassessment proceedings in respect of issues that are subject matter

RAMILABEN DINESHBHAI MORADIYA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 142(1) of the Act was issued, asking the assessee to furnish details regarding the source of the cash deposits, but again, the assessee did not comply. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the savings bank statement showed total credit entries of Rs. 58,79,197

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 68 the onus on assessee has been duly discharged in reassessment proceedings. It has been held in Apex Court and jurisdictional High Court that when the primary onus on the assessee is discharged then the Ld. A.O. cannot proceed further for making addition u/s. 68 of the Act.” 10.1 The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions :- 1

RAJKUMAR PAVANKUMAR SHARMA,MAKARPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment, the assessee contended that the notice under section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction and not issued in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme. The CIT(Appeals) examined the provisions of section 151A and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, Rajkumar Pavankumar Sharma vs. ITO Asst. Year –2018-19 - 4– 2022 and held that the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions of section 145(3), rejected the books of account, and applied a gross profit rate of 12.5%. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the rejection

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions of section 145(3), rejected the books of account, and applied a gross profit rate of 12.5%. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the rejection

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions of section 145(3), rejected the books of account, and applied a gross profit rate of 12.5%. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the rejection

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

1)(a)\n(Rs.)\nNA\n6,61,29,990/-\n6,58,34,650/-\nDate of AO's Order\n23.03.2023\n27.09.2022\n23.12.2022\nSection of AO's Order\n147 r.w.s.\n144B\n143(3) r.w.s.\n144B\n143(3) r.w.s.\n144B\nAmount of Alleged Bogus\nPurchases added (Rs.)\n92,95,26,352/-\n49,84,90,503/-\n412,48,43,029/-\nGross Profit Rate Applied

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

1)(a)\n(Rs.)\nNA\n6,61,29,990/-\n6,58,34,650/-\nDate of AO's Order\n23.03.2023\n27.09.2022\n23.12.2022\nSection of AO's Order\n147 r.w.s.\n144B\n143(3) r.w.s.\n144B\n143(3) r.w.s.\n144B\nAmount of Alleged Bogus\nPurchases added (Rs.)\n92,95,26,352/-\n49,84,90,503/-\n412,48,43,029/-\nGross Profit Rate Applied

BHAVINIBEN SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(2)(2)), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

197 URO (Delhi) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that as per the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 22 (Gij.), it clarified that the issue of “reopening” is with respect to “jurisdiction” and the same can be raised at any stage. The very initiation of reassessment is not tenable

BHAVINIBEN SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(2)(2)), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

197 URO (Delhi) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that as per the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 22 (Gij.), it clarified that the issue of “reopening” is with respect to “jurisdiction” and the same can be raised at any stage. The very initiation of reassessment is not tenable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI GHANSHYAM P. HIRPARA,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, summarily dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

197, Shivam Bunglows, Ahmedabad Nehru Park, Nr.State Bank of India, Opp. Vastrapur Lake, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: ADIPD2085K (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2955, 1425/Ahd/2014 & ors. A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10 Page No 2 ACIT Vs. Shri Ghanshyam P. Hirpara and ors. IT(SS)A No: 41/Ahd/2015 & C.O. No: 51/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 The ACIT, Shri Rajesh Rameshbhai Circle

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI P. HIRPARA,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, summarily dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

197, Shivam Bunglows, Ahmedabad Nehru Park, Nr.State Bank of India, Opp. Vastrapur Lake, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: ADIPD2085K (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 2955, 1425/Ahd/2014 & ors. A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10 Page No 2 ACIT Vs. Shri Ghanshyam P. Hirpara and ors. IT(SS)A No: 41/Ahd/2015 & C.O. No: 51/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 The ACIT, Shri Rajesh Rameshbhai Circle