CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

234C and 234D of the Act s to be computed as per law and facts on the record. 4. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The first issue raised by the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in holding the assessment framed under section

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. 7 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition made by AO of unaccounted income earned from various scripts u/s 69A of the Act though assessee is not found to be owner of any money, bullion or jewellery. 8 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier contentions. The Assessing Officer again treated the ledger “Mukesh Ratnajyot / Mukeshbhai RJ” as pertaining to the assessee, computed the incremental negative peak for the year at ₹1,14,52,110/- and added the same under section 69C. Interest accrued as per the diary amounting to ₹12,91,279/- was added under section

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

reassessment proceedings vide issuance of reopening notice dated 31 March 2018 under section 148 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that it was issued beyond a period of four years and accordingly was time barred in terms of first proviso to section 147 of the IT Act. IRM Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

SHRI RUSHABHDEV SWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

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

sections 234A, 234B and 234C, we hold that these are consequential and shall be determined in accordance with law while completing the reassessment

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

234C & 234D of the Act as applicable after giving credit for taxes paid by the assessee. Relevant to mention that before the DPO, Panel-2, Mumbai, the assessee on 12.02.2021 by way of additional ground challenged the validity of the TPO’s order being barred by limitation. The case of the assessee before the Hon’ble DRP is this that

SARFARAZKHAN SARVARKHAN PATHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 17.12.2019 and assessed the total income at Rs.2,24,27,908/-. In doing so, the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs.47,48,500/- as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act, Rs.6,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, Rs.1

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the I T Act, the claim was not considered and the depreciation claimed in the original return was only allowed. The additional ground was preferred merely because the same was left to be taken in the appeal filed against the present impugned assessment order. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

BHAVNA SHETALKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the\nAssessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144 and section\n144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] for\nthe Assessment Year 2016-17.\nCondonation of Delay\n2.\nAt the outset, it is noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay\nof 170 days

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(11),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RUPAL BHUPENDRASINGH SANDHU,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ITA

Bench: Hearing Of An Appeal.”

234C of the IT Act. He may be directed to withdraw the same. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before hearing of an appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 2626 & 2953/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 4 Rupal Bhupendrasingh Sandhu vs. ITO & ITO vs. Rupal Bhupendrasingh Sandhu 5. Before us, before going