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

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

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

245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, Assessing Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year. In the case of Kothi Steel Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, Assessing Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year. In the case of Kothi Steel Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, Assessing Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year. In the case of Kothi Steel Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, Assessing Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year. In the case of Kothi Steel Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

245 (Gujarat)[05-04-2016], the Gujarat High Court held that in absence of any failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment, Assessing Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year. In the case of Kothi Steel Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Atul Hiralal Shah, D.C.I.T, 8, Amrashirish Bungalows, Vs. Central Circle-1(2), Near Prahladnagar Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aljps4966M

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year." 62. Correspondingly with effect from the same date, Clause (v) to Explanation

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

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

245 (Pune); * Biren V. Savla vs. ACIT – (2006) 155 Taxman 270 (Mum); * Madhav Corpn. vs ACIT– (2017) 85 taxmann.com 238 (Ahd); * DCIT v Kankakia Hospitality P Ltd. – (2019) 179 ITD 1 (Mum); 7.4. In view of the above, Ld Senior Counsel submitted that Ld CIT(A) has taken utmost care while determining the income based on seized material. Consequently, balance

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 68/69A of the Act because based on the investigations made and the findings therefrom the AO has the basis of to be not satisfied with the explanations furnished by the appellant. The satisfaction of the AO is not arbitrary and is not based on whims and fancy". (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the assessee. 5. The assessment order reveals that several notices were issued to the assessee by the AO during the proceedings, but the assessee did not respond to the same. The AO accordingly made inquiries and collected information from the bank of the assessee where the amounts were found

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

245 of the Act, adjusting the refund against the outstanding demand, prompting the assessee to inquire about the status of the appeal. Upon realizing that the appeal was not filed, immediate steps were taken to file it on 02.09.2024, resulting in a delay of 191 days. The assessee has supported his application for condonation of delay with an affidavit from

M/S. BHAVI LEASING & FINANCE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Bhavi Leasing & Finance Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(1) 36/3, Sindhi Commercial Market Vs Baroda. Kalupur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Aaacb 9407 F

reassessment done under section 147 has been challenged on various grounds. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee primarily challenged reopening for the following reasons: i) Reasons did not reveal any escapement of income in the case of the assessee; ITA No.994 /Ahd/2017 ii) No addition was made of the income which the AO had formed a belief of having

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment order. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 19. It contended that similar issue was taken in the hands of SDBPL. Dispute travelled upto the ITAT, and it was held that assessee and SDBPL were maintaining current accounts. These were not in the nature of loans which could be treated

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment order. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 19. It contended that similar issue was taken in the hands of SDBPL. Dispute travelled upto the ITAT, and it was held that assessee and SDBPL were maintaining current accounts. These were not in the nature of loans which could be treated

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment order. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 19. It contended that similar issue was taken in the hands of SDBPL. Dispute travelled upto the ITAT, and it was held that assessee and SDBPL were maintaining current accounts. These were not in the nature of loans which could be treated

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment order. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 19. It contended that similar issue was taken in the hands of SDBPL. Dispute travelled upto the ITAT, and it was held that assessee and SDBPL were maintaining current accounts. These were not in the nature of loans which could be treated