YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

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

25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act and assessment was reopened

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

25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act and assessment was reopened

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

25, Vitthal Nagar Co-op Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

25, Vitthal Nagar Co-op Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return

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 14A does not survive. • Considering these facts Assessee claimed that once addition made by the AO is deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT, disallowance u/s.14A would not survive and AO has already not made other additions based upon reasons recorded. Hence reassessment order passed by AO deserves to be annulled as no effective addition(s) is/are made or survive

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

reassessment\nproceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The AR contended that the\nAssessing Officer had reopened the assessments in all three years based on a\nfundamentally incorrect presumption that the assessee was one of the\nITA Nos.960, 961 & 962/Ahd/2024 (By Revenue) &\nCos 14, 15 & 16/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee)\nAsst. Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively\n8\nbeneficiaries

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

25,88,626/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated

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

25,88,626/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated

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

25,88,626/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated

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

25,88,626/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated

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

25,88,626/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, it is pertinent to record that the assessee had not furnished any source-wise bifurcation or supporting documentary evidence in respect of the deposits made in the account maintained with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, it is pertinent to record that the assessee had not furnished any source-wise bifurcation or supporting documentary evidence in respect of the deposits made in the account maintained with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, it is pertinent to record that the assessee had not furnished any source-wise bifurcation or supporting documentary evidence in respect of the deposits made in the account maintained with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, it is pertinent to record that the assessee had not furnished any source-wise bifurcation or supporting documentary evidence in respect of the deposits made in the account maintained with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat