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

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

2,87,420/- whereas in the first paragraph of the order the returned income is mentioned at Rs. 3,25,000/- Accordingly in the computation assessed income is Rs. 72,43,244/-. These amounts need to be verified and corrected. 4.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte reassessments, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional and substantive

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

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

2,87,420/- whereas in the first paragraph of the order the returned income is mentioned at Rs. 3,25,000/- Accordingly in the computation assessed income is Rs. 72,43,244/-. These amounts need to be verified and corrected. 4.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte reassessments, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional and substantive

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

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

2,87,420/- whereas in the first paragraph of the order the returned income is mentioned at Rs. 3,25,000/- Accordingly in the computation assessed income is Rs. 72,43,244/-. These amounts need to be verified and corrected. 4.5 Aggrieved by the ex-parte reassessments, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional and substantive

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment'. The term 'escaped assessment' includes both 'non- assessment' as well as 'under assessment'. Income is said to have 'escaped assessment' within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee in the relevant year

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment'. The term 'escaped assessment' includes both 'non- assessment' as well as 'under assessment'. Income is said to have 'escaped assessment' within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee in the relevant year

ITO, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT PIYUSHKUMAR PATEL, AHMEDABAD

reassessment proceedings and after considering the contentions made by the assessee to the effect that the impugned land did not qualify as capital asset u/s. 2(14) of the Act, since it was situated beyond 8 KM from the Ahmedabad Municipal Limits, the A.O. held that there was no truth in the contention of the assessee since the land

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

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"].

2 income of Rs. 17,25,831/-. In the said return, the assessee had also shown exempt income of Rs. 1,02,19,436/- under the head Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of equity shares claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The return was initially processed. Subsequently, based on information received from the Investigation Wing

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

SHRI NIRAL KRUPESH PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(3), BARODA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142, or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or 9.6 A bare reading of the above provision reveals that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is subject

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

251 and the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd.,183 CTR 182, the assessee contended that depreciation should not be reduced in the year under consideration. However, the AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee. While referring to the amendment in the provisions of section

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

2), the assessee did not file the return of income in response thereto. Show- cause notices dated 22.10.2019 and 11.11.2019 were also stated to have been issued, but according to the AO, no compliance was made. Consequently, the AO proceeded ex parte and framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer, on the basis

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 Samsung mobiles were also seized and inventorized in which certain evidences regarding foreign investment of the assessee was found. Further, that the search was conducted precisely for the reason that the foreign bank accounts of the assessee were not disclosed to the Department in their Income Tax returns. The information as available with the Department was confronted

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 Samsung mobiles were also seized and inventorized in which certain evidences regarding foreign investment of the assessee was found. Further, that the search was conducted precisely for the reason that the foreign bank accounts of the assessee were not disclosed to the Department in their Income Tax returns. The information as available with the Department was confronted

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2 Samsung mobiles were also seized and inventorized in which certain evidences regarding foreign investment of the assessee was found. Further, that the search was conducted precisely for the reason that the foreign bank accounts of the assessee were not disclosed to the Department in their Income Tax returns. The information as available with the Department was confronted