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

6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the materials on record. I have observed that the assessee did not file return of income u/s 139. There were cash deposits of more than Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account with Central Bank of India. The information to that effect was received

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay

SARDARBHAI RAMSANGBHAI DHULIYA ,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 PREVIOUSLY WARD-5, PALANPUR

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

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 22-05-2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1)

250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, which in turn has arisen from the assessment order dated 29-12-2018 passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s. 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, reads as under

J. P. MARKETING MEHSANA,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

sections": [ "147", "250(6)", "176(3)", "189", "45", "159" ], "issues": "Whether reassessment proceedings and additions made in the name of a partnership

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 ...

sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "271(1)(c)", "250", "69", "69A" ], "issues": "Whether 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

6– the nature and source of such receipts. Relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts laying down that unexplained credits and money can be brought to tax when satisfactory explanation is not offered, he upheld the Assessing Officer’s action in treating Rs.169.79 crores as unexplained income and taxing the same under section 115BBE. He also

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the assessment year 2011–12, arising from the reassessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle IRM Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT A.Y 2011-12 2 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer / AO”) under section 144 read with section

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

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

6 that the assessee had engaged in transactions aimed at introducing unaccounted income in the garb of loans and sales, and accordingly, additions were made under section 69A for both years, and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 8. The assessee preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, challenging the reassessment orders passed under section

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

6 that the assessee had engaged in transactions aimed at introducing unaccounted income in the garb of loans and sales, and accordingly, additions were made under section 69A for both years, and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 8. The assessee preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, challenging the reassessment orders passed under section

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

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

6 that the assessee had engaged in transactions aimed at introducing unaccounted income in the garb of loans and sales, and accordingly, additions were made under section 69A for both years, and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 8. The assessee preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, challenging the reassessment orders passed under section

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

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

6 that the assessee had engaged in transactions aimed at introducing unaccounted income in the garb of loans and sales, and accordingly, additions were made under section 69A for both years, and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 8. The assessee preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, challenging the reassessment orders passed under section

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

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

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

6 1. It is submitted that interest u/s. 244A(1A) of I.T. Acts was not granted by Id. Assessing Officer on principal refund of Rs. 68.325 /- from June 2016 till the date of issue of refund. Hon'ble CIT(A) passed appellate order vide appeal No. CIT(A)/GNR/80/200-01 dated 30- 01-2003. The effect thereof was given

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

250 are vitiated in law, having been framed and upheld without furnishing the Appellant with any incriminating material specific to him, and without I.T.A No. 1917/Ahd/2025 Sunil Piyush Shah, A.Y. 2019-20 granting an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon. The orders suffer from gross procedural irregularities, non-application of mind, and mechanical reliance