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

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment

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

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment

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

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment

RAJASTHAN JAIN MITRA PARISHAD,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, JURISDICTIONAL AO: THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

Section 250(6). It is painful to note that the ld. CIT(A) had observed that since the assessee has not filed any submissions before him , the assessee is not aggrieved by the reassessment

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment order was passed on 20-03-2023, the revisionary order under section 263 followed on 24-03-2024, the Jatinkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 - 10– consequential assessment order under section 144 read with section 263 was passed on 27-02-2025 and the impugned appellate order under section 250

MINOR HARESH KARSANBHAI PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEFERRED FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2) NOW WARD- 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 863/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 1982-1983 Minor Haresh Karsanbhai Patel Oral Income Tax Officer, Specific Deferred Family Trust, Vs. Ward-5(2)(2), Nirma House, Ahmedabad. Near Income Tax Circle, Now Ashram Road, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad-380009. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad Pan: Aaath4880P

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

BRIJESHKUMAR JAYANTIBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench , Ahmedabad For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 7Th November, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

reassessment in the case of the assessee, and this led to issuance of notice u/s 148. The I.T.A No. 18/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 8 Brijeshkumar Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO assessee did not file return of income in response to notice issued by the AO u/s 148. There were other notices/letters issued by the AO, but only part compliance

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

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

reassessment proceedings were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the addition of Rs.19,46,57,904/- sustained by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. In Assessee’s appeal– ITA No. 830/Ahd/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15 1.1 The order passed under section 250

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

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

reassessment proceedings were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the addition of Rs.19,46,57,904/- sustained by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. In Assessee’s appeal– ITA No. 830/Ahd/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15 1.1 The order passed under section 250

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

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

reassessment proceedings were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the addition of Rs.19,46,57,904/- sustained by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. In Assessee’s appeal– ITA No. 830/Ahd/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15 1.1 The order passed under section 250

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 proceedings were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the addition of Rs.19,46,57,904/- sustained by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. In Assessee’s appeal– ITA No. 830/Ahd/2024 - A.Y. 2014-15 1.1 The order passed under section 250

ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly accepted in principle, and the issue is restored to the\nAssessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of directions\nabove.\n25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee ...

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n[hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"] for the assessment year\n2013–14. The impugned order arises from the reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

250 vide order dated 21/12/2023 passed for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 17-08-2018: I.T.A No. 292/Ahd/2024

SUNIL PIYUSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. -THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

reassessment order dated 11.02.2025 passed under section 147 read with section 144B and the appellate order dated 05.09.2025 passed under section 250

MAHESH D.TEKCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Mahesh Tekchandani, Income-Tax Officer, 67, Shivalik Bungalows, Ward-3(3)(3), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aespt 5350 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.1 The Order Passed By U/S.250 Passed On 20.10.2023 By Cit(A)-Nfac Delhi Upholding The Addition Of Rs.28,72,000/- Made By A.O. Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The First Payment By Cheque Was Made On 03.02.2014 & The Final Purchase Deed Was Executed In Fy 2018-19. But No Evidence Pointed Out By Ao To Prove That The Alleged Cash Payment Was Made During The Previous Year Relevant To A.Y. 2012-13. 2 Mahesh D. Tekchandani Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 20.10.2023 by CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.28,72,000/- made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful

DEEP SUDHIRBHAI SHETH (LEGAL HEIR OF SUDHIR HIMMATLAL SHETH),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Deep Sudhirbhai Sheth (Legal Heirs Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) Of Sudhir Himmatlal Sheth) Vs. Ahmedabad. Prop. Subhlaxmi Jewellers 3, Khodiyar Shopping Centre Nr.Ishanpur Bus Stand Ishanpur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ainps 3786 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarnai, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

250. The undisputed factual position is that the assessee expired on 23.05.2016. Despite this, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148A(b) on 13.02.2023, passed order under section 148A(d) on 18.03.2023, and thereafter issued notice under section 148 on 18.03.2023, all in the name of a person who was no longer in existence. The reassessment

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present case were initiated on the assessee for the impugned assessment year on information I.T.A No. 2948/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Abdulvahed A.Sheikh

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MEHUL PRATAP ASNANI,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. Nos. 3133/Ahd/2015 & 1659/Ahd/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2010-11)

reassessment or re-computation is made on the assesse or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order, under sections 250