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

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

255 (Raj.)] has, after an elaborate examination of the statutory scheme under sections 153A, 153C and 147, held that when the seized material “belongs to or relates to” a person other than the one searched, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C, and that the jurisdiction under section 147/148 can be exercised only where no incriminating material is found during

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

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

255 (Raj.)] has, after an elaborate examination of the statutory scheme under sections 153A, 153C and 147, held that when the seized material “belongs to or relates to” a person other than the one searched, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C, and that the jurisdiction under section 147/148 can be exercised only where no incriminating material is found during

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

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

255 (Raj.)] has, after an elaborate examination of the statutory scheme under sections 153A, 153C and 147, held that when the seized material “belongs to or relates to” a person other than the one searched, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C, and that the jurisdiction under section 147/148 can be exercised only where no incriminating material is found during

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.’ 2. New Rule 8D : 2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.’ 2. New Rule 8D : 2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.’ 2. New Rule 8D : 2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

255 and 256/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 The ITO, Ward-1(8) Madhav Copper Ltd. Bhavnagar. Vs. 348, Madhav Darshan Waghawadi Road Bhavnagar Gujarat 364 001. PAN : AAICM 2859 A ITA No.274, 275 and 276/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Madhav Copper Ltd. The ITO, Ward-1(8) 348, Madhav Darshan Vs. Bhavnagar

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

255 and 256/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 The ITO, Ward-1(8) Madhav Copper Ltd. Bhavnagar. Vs. 348, Madhav Darshan Waghawadi Road Bhavnagar Gujarat 364 001. PAN : AAICM 2859 A ITA No.274, 275 and 276/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Madhav Copper Ltd. The ITO, Ward-1(8) 348, Madhav Darshan Vs. Bhavnagar

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

255 and 256/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 The ITO, Ward-1(8) Madhav Copper Ltd. Bhavnagar. Vs. 348, Madhav Darshan Waghawadi Road Bhavnagar Gujarat 364 001. PAN : AAICM 2859 A ITA No.274, 275 and 276/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Madhav Copper Ltd. The ITO, Ward-1(8) 348, Madhav Darshan Vs. Bhavnagar

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

255 and 256/Ahd/2024\nAsstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nThe ITO, Ward-1(8)\nBhavnagar.\nMadhav Copper Ltd.\nVs.348, Madhav Darshan\nWaghawadi Road\nBhavnagar\nGujarat 364 001.\nPAN : AAICM 2859 A\nITA No.274, 275 and 276/Ahd/2024\nAsstt.Year: 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nMadhav Copper Ltd.\n348, Madhav Darshan\nWaghawadi Road\nBhavnagar\nGujarat 364 001.\nPAN: AAICM

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

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

255/-. 6. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the total addition to Rs. 1,43,82,753/-, out of addition of Rs.3,14,74,000/- towards unaccounted investment and addition of Rs.5,80,05,600/- towards on money receipts in Khoraj and Shilpgram land

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

255 and 256/Ahd/2024\nAsstt.Year : 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nThe ITO, Ward-1(8)\nBhavnagar.\nMadhav Copper Ltd.\nVs. 348, Madhav Darshan\nWaghawadi Road\nBhavnagar\nGujarat 364 001.\nPAN : AAICM 2859 A\nITA No.274, 275 and 276/Ahd/2024\nAsstt.Year: 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2021-22\nThe ITO, Ward-1(8)\nVs.\nBhavnagar.\nMadhav Copper Ltd.\n348, Madhav Darshan

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 3049 & 3050/Ahd/2010 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: (1998-1999 & 1999 & 2000) Gujarat Industries Power Company The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, P.O Petrochemicals, Circle-1(1), Baroda-391346. Baroda.

255, 256 and 258/AHD/2017 for the AYs 1998- 1999, 1999-2000 & 1997-1998 vide order dated 10/03/2023, has recalled its order for limited purpose i.e. adjudication of ground number 1 wherein the validity of the proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the Act have been challenged. 3. In the present case, the proceedings u/s 147 of the were initiated after recording

BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

255) wherein it is held that no single fact or circumstances has decisive significance and it is totality of the relevant factors and circumstances that has to be take into account for the purpose of determining the true nature of the transaction. The A.O. has applied in the present case only the test of motive or intention but incorrectly