YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

250(4) and section 251(1)(a) of the Act and ensures proper examination of the assessee’s claims while preserving the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment

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

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

250(4) and section 251(1)(a) of the Act and ensures proper examination of the assessee’s claims while preserving the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment

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

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

250(4) and section 251(1)(a) of the Act and ensures proper examination of the assessee’s claims while preserving the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment

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

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,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

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

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

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

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

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

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

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

DHARMENDRA RIKHAVCHAND SHAH, HUF,HIMATNAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT HURIS.THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250. Dharmendra Rikhavchand Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 2– 3. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 are bad in law being as the same is in violation of section 151A and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 which provides for Faceless Reassessment proceedings. 4

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.

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1061662541(1), which appeal before 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

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

reassess total income under section 153A is fundamentally triggered by the discovery of such incriminating material. If no such material is found, the completed assessment attains finality and no additions can be made. 9.3. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact, and was also fairly conceded by the Ld. DR during the course of hearing, that no incriminating

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063573997(1) and ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023-24/1063574322(1) for assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively , which in turn has arisen from the separate assessment order(s) firstly dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with Section 144B for assessment year 2018-19 & secondly dated

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063573997(1) and ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023-24/1063574322(1) for assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively , which in turn has arisen from the separate assessment order(s) firstly dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with Section 144B for assessment year 2018-19 & secondly dated

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)

reassessment order , if that be so , then there was no need for the assessee to file the appeal with ld. CIT(A) and further to ITAT. As per section 250(6), the CIT(A) has to state the points for determination, decision thereof and reasoning thereof. But in the instant case, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), and the ld. CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee, but the assessee did not file any details/documents before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee sought adjournments before ld.CIT(A) on 15.07.2022 , 01.08.2022 and finally w.r.t. final opportunity granted by ld. CIT(A) for compliance

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

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

RAJIV AMRITLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act relating to Asst. Year 2013-14. I.T(SS)A Nos. 32 to 37/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2019-20 & Ors. Page No 2 Rajiv Amritlal Patel vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and working as an Accountant