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

reassess income under section 147 of the Act is under the obligation to issue a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In case the AO ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2008-09 & 2017-18 22

BEES INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

22][e] of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 2.1. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before CIT[A] who has confirmed that addition by holding that the provisions of section

SNEHAL RAVJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

section 69A.\n8.\nThe learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the\nfindings and reasoning of the Assessing Officer as set out in the reassessment\norders. The DR further contended that the assessee's argument regarding\nITA Nos.960, 961 & 962/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) &\nCos 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee)\nAsst. Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively\n10\nreceipt of shares

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The details of the assessment and appellate proceedings for both years

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The details of the assessment and appellate proceedings for both years

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The details of the assessment and appellate proceedings for both years

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The details of the assessment and appellate proceedings for both years

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred. [Emphasis supplied.] 22

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred. [Emphasis supplied.] 22

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

22– under section 68 of the Act can be made merely because of low income of the lender or absence of return filing, we are of the view that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus laid upon it. Further, the repayment of loan, as consistently held in the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, serves

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

22– under section 68 of the Act can be made merely because of low income of the lender or absence of return filing, we are of the view that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus laid upon it. Further, the repayment of loan, as consistently held in the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, serves

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

22– under section 68 of the Act can be made merely because of low income of the lender or absence of return filing, we are of the view that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus laid upon it. Further, the repayment of loan, as consistently held in the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, serves