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

24. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment in case of the assessee for AY 2008-09 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30th March 2019. The AO finally framed assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the hands of assessee vide order dated 23-12-2019 wherein

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 147 of the Act, to assess or reassess such income for which he had recorded his reasons to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income which escaped assessment which came to his notice subsequently in the course of the assessment proceedings. 24

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

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

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

reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA and that all notices issued beyond the surviving period were time barred and liable to be set aside. This time-line was also demonstrated in para 112 of the order with an illustration. The Apex Court had held

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

reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA and that all notices issued beyond the surviving period were time barred and liable to be set aside. This time-line was also demonstrated in para 112 of the order with an illustration. The Apex Court had held

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

24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction of the case, it is significant to mention here that on perusal of relevant facts on record

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

24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction of the case, it is significant to mention here that on perusal of relevant facts on record

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

24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction of the case, it is significant to mention here that on perusal of relevant facts on record

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

24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction of the case, it is significant to mention here that on perusal of relevant facts on record

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

24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction of the case, it is significant to mention here that on perusal of relevant facts on record

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

24– “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may arise.” 32. The brief facts

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

24– “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may arise.” 32. The brief facts

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

24– “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may arise.” 32. The brief facts

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

24– “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may arise.” 32. The brief facts

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

24– “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may arise.” 32. The brief facts