DANABHAI BHARVAD,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

Section 249(4)(b), as no adjudicating authorities are seized of the matter to adjudicate on the issue of the taxability of an income which is claimed to be an exempt income u/s 10(1), which got taxed owing to an exparte best judgment reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings are found not tenable. This view is supported by the decision of various ITAT Benches. Some of such decisions are noted as under: ii. Without valid notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act 5.2.2 Having considered the above facts and submission of the assessee, the stand of the assessee is found some force for the reason

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

reassessment proceedings are found not tenable. This view is supported by the decision of various ITAT Benches. Some of such decisions are noted as under: ii. Without valid notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act 5.2.2 Having considered the above facts and submission of the assessee, the stand of the assessee is found some force for the reason

MR. KANTILAL LAXMICHAND JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 799 & 800/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Ito Jain Ward - 1(2)(3), Vs. 22 Jakorbal Chamber, Opp. Ahmedabad Madhubaug Panchkuwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpj6013E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. Dr 19/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/10/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 29.12.2023 & 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2. Ground No. 2 Incorrect disposal of Appeal by Hon'ble CIT(A) by applying provisions of section 249

MR. KANTILAL LAXMICHAND JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 799 & 800/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Ito Jain Ward - 1(2)(3), Vs. 22 Jakorbal Chamber, Opp. Ahmedabad Madhubaug Panchkuwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpj6013E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. Dr 19/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/10/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 29.12.2023 & 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2. Ground No. 2 Incorrect disposal of Appeal by Hon'ble CIT(A) by applying provisions of section 249

HEMLATA HARAKCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings were\ninitiated in case of the assessee on the basis of information available with\nthe Department demonstrating that the assessee had engaged in share\ntransactions aggregating to ₹13,32,916/- in the shares of M/s. Hemo\nOrganics Limited, a penny stock company, during the relevant assessment\nyear. However, the assessee had failed to file her return of income

YUNUSBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Be Taken On Record & Decide On Merits Of The Case.

reassessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. I.T.A No. 954/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Yunusbhai Ibrahimbhai Patel vs. ITO 2. At the outset, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) for non-payment

HUSENI STATIONERY & PAPER MART,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings on ex-parte basis, based on available material. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment at a total income of Rs. 42,07,810/- (which comprised of income declared by the assessee of Rs. 30,810/- and the addition of Rs. 41,77,000/- on account of unexplained money made by the Assessing Officer). Further, penalty proceedings under

HUSENI STATIONERY & PAPER MART,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings on ex-parte basis, based on available material. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment at a total income of Rs. 42,07,810/- (which comprised of income declared by the assessee of Rs. 30,810/- and the addition of Rs. 41,77,000/- on account of unexplained money made by the Assessing Officer). Further, penalty proceedings under

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode