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

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133(6), nor were the creditors summoned under section 131 to verify their creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. 41. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and held

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

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133(6), nor were the creditors summoned under section 131 to verify their creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. 41. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and held

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

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133(6), nor were the creditors summoned under section 131 to verify their creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. 41. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and held

SACHINKUMAR PREMANANDBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Sachinkumar Premanandbhai Patel Ito, Ward-1 Nr.Old Post Office Vs. Anand. Bhalej Anand Umreth, Gujarat Pan : Auhpp 8057 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Sigh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 233

RUSHINA VIKRAM DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms Suchitra Kamblerushina Vikram Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 4, Preyesh Bunglow, Ward-3(3)(2), Opp. Rushil Bunglow, Ahmedabad. Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054. [Pan :Blvpd4194 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Respondent By: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

section 148 of the Act despite there being no escapement of income. The reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed as the jurisdictional condition for assumption of reassessment proceedings has not been satisfied. Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition amounting to Rs.50,91,233

RUSHINA VIKRAM DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 3(3)(2), INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 2300/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 2 Ruhina Vikram Desai Vs. ITO 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: Your appellant being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

233. 8.1 The ld CIT-A after considering the submission of assessee and remand report, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in the CO before us. 10. The learned AR for the assessee before us reiterated the submissions

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

233. 8.1 The ld CIT-A after considering the submission of assessee and remand report, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in the CO before us. 10. The learned AR for the assessee before us reiterated the submissions

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

233. 8.1 The ld CIT-A after considering the submission of assessee and remand report, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in the CO before us. 10. The learned AR for the assessee before us reiterated the submissions

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 69 of the Act, when the assessee has not maintained books of account and source of unaccounted income of Rs.40,95,442/- has not been explained. The A.O. ought to have made addition u/s. 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus the reassessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

PURNIMA ADVERTISING AGENCY P.LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground challenging reassessment order passed by AO on the basis of same records without any tangible material brought on record. Ld. CIT (A) failed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

233 47,33,86,785 22,15,26,118 1,06,44,45,543 3.2. Amounts relating to A.Y. 2015-16 are not part of the above summarized tables as we are not dealing with the appeal of the said A.Y. 3.3. Notices under Section 153A of the Act were issued, requiring the assessee to file returns for multiple years

BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

233/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has ought to have upheld the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

233/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has ought to have upheld the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that

M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADD.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

233/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has ought to have upheld the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that

BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

233/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has ought to have upheld the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

233 is deleted. It is also found that AO has made disallowance of 10% of salary expenses and as per expenditure debited in Profit & Loss Account, 10% of expenditure works out to Rs.58,841 as against addition made for Ra.67,842. Considering this fact, excess addition made by AO for Rs. 9,001 is deleted. Thus, Appellant get relief

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

233 is deleted. It is also found that AO has made disallowance of 10% of salary expenses and as per expenditure debited in Profit & Loss Account, 10% of expenditure works out to Rs.58,841 as against addition made for Ra.67,842. Considering this fact, excess addition made by AO for Rs. 9,001 is deleted. Thus, Appellant get relief

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

233 is deleted. It is also found that AO has made disallowance of 10% of salary expenses and as per expenditure debited in Profit & Loss Account, 10% of expenditure works out to Rs.58,841 as against addition made for Ra.67,842. Considering this fact, excess addition made by AO for Rs. 9,001 is deleted. Thus, Appellant get relief