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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN 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

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 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

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR 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

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