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

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

251(1)(a) of the Act and ensures proper examination of the assessee’s claims while preserving the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment. 7.22 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that: i. The reassessment proceedings under section

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

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

251(1)(a) of the Act and ensures proper examination of the assessee’s claims while preserving the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment. 7.22 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that: i. The reassessment proceedings under section

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

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

251(1)(a) of the Act and ensures proper examination of the assessee’s claims while preserving the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment. 7.22 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that: i. The reassessment proceedings under section

SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold 24,800 equity shares of M/s. Looks Health Services Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs.1,05,04,800/-, which was claimed as exempt Long Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer observed that the said scrip was identified by the Investigation Wing as one of the penny stock companies

DEWARKADHISH DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 635 To 637/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2015-16 To 2017-18) Dwarkadhish Developers, The Deputy Commissioner Plot No. H-3066/4, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Dwarkadhish Residency, Central Circle-2, Esic Hospital Road, Vadodara. Gidc Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfd8537F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

reassessments and the additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) passed separate orders for each ITA Nos.635 to 637/Ahd/2025. Dwarkadhish Developers vs.D CIT A.Ys 2015-16 to 2017-18) 3 year, exercising powers under the amended provisions of section 153(3) and the newly inserted proviso to section 251

DEWARKADHISH DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 635 To 637/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2015-16 To 2017-18) Dwarkadhish Developers, The Deputy Commissioner Plot No. H-3066/4, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Dwarkadhish Residency, Central Circle-2, Esic Hospital Road, Vadodara. Gidc Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfd8537F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

reassessments and the additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) passed separate orders for each ITA Nos.635 to 637/Ahd/2025. Dwarkadhish Developers vs.D CIT A.Ys 2015-16 to 2017-18) 3 year, exercising powers under the amended provisions of section 153(3) and the newly inserted proviso to section 251

DEWARKADHISH DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 635 To 637/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2015-16 To 2017-18) Dwarkadhish Developers, The Deputy Commissioner Plot No. H-3066/4, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Dwarkadhish Residency, Central Circle-2, Esic Hospital Road, Vadodara. Gidc Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfd8537F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

reassessments and the additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) passed separate orders for each ITA Nos.635 to 637/Ahd/2025. Dwarkadhish Developers vs.D CIT A.Ys 2015-16 to 2017-18) 3 year, exercising powers under the amended provisions of section 153(3) and the newly inserted proviso to section 251

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21-12-2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary challenge is against the addition of Rs.1,16,49,66,875/- and Rs.90

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21-12-2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary challenge is against the addition of Rs.1,16,49,66,875/- and Rs.90

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

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

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

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

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

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

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

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

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

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

GOVINDBHAI BHAVANDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 4(2)(2), AHMEDABAD (EXISTING ITO WARD 4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Set Aside The Exparte Assessment Order Invoking Section 251(1)(A) Of The Act By Observing As Follows:

reassessment proceedings. 2. That the learned National faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts by not quashing the assessment order as notice under section 143(2) of the Act has not been issued and accordingly the order passed by the learned AO is required to be quashed 3. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PHOENIX FLEXIBLES PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

251(1)(a) of the Act which allowed the Ld. CIT(A) to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment where the order of assessment was made under Section 144 of the Act. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the section as mentioned in the first page of the assessment

SHRI RUSHABHDEV SWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act on the basis of PAN AAATR2081G were invalid, and secondly, whether the addition of Rs. 75,41,227/- made under section 69A was justified. 15. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the assessee–trust was allotted two PANs — AAATR2081G and AAATR5288B. The assessee claims to have submitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

sections 148 and 251, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from infrastructure industrial undertakings (Reassessment) - Assessment