NARMADA CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

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

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 33/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Narmada Concast Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

259 ITR 502/[2002] 124 Taxman 615 (Guj.) Division Bench of this Court referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000]243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 observed as under: "6. From the above observations made by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the provisions of Section 263cannot be invoked

M/S. SHIVAM DEVELOPERS,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shivam Developers The Dy.Cit Plot No.C/1, 1301, Phase-I Vs Mehsana Circle Gidc, Chhatral, Tal.Kalol Mehsana Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 229 Pan: Abwfs 4815 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar & Shri Daivat Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S.Shivam Developers Vs. Dcit Mehsana Asst. Year : 2012-13

259 ITR 19 (SC) has categorically laid down the procedure to be adopted during reassessment proceedings and clarified that – “… when a notice under Section

SAROJBEN LALITBHAI VADHANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sarojben Lalitbhai Vadhani The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ B-406 Surel Apartments Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr.Devashish School Ahmedabad Judges Bungalow Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Awspv 8887 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Mehta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 22/02/2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Act, By The Ao, Dated 10/12/2019. Sarojben Lalitbhai Vadhani Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

259 ITR 19 (SC). In the present case, the AO's failure to provide such reasons despite the assessee's request raises serious doubts about the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 6.2. The addition of Rs.46,50,500/- under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN VEJALPUR vs. VIPUL JAGDISHBHAI PATEL(HUF), NARANPURA AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/W. Cross Objection No. 59/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Huf) Vs. A-302, Aryan-2, Nr. Kabir School, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 & Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel Income Tax Officer (Huf) Ward-2(1)(2), A-302, Aryan-2, Nr. Kabir Ahmedabad School, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghv7848P (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit P Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Siliguri (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”), Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) & Relate To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. Ita No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/W. Co No. 59/Ahd/2025 [Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel (Huf)] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed For Filing By 16 Days. The Ao Has Explained The Cause Of Delay As Being Preoccupied In Pressing Matters Including Time Barring Matters, High Court Matters & Others. Considering The Smallness Of The Delay, We Consider It Fit To Condone The Delay. Order Was Pronounced In The Open Court.

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relate to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. ITA No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/w. CO No. 59/Ahd/2025 [Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel (HUF)] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – 2. The appeal of the assessee is delayed for filing by 16 days. The AO has explained the cause of delay as being

AMRUTA FABRICS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1110, 1111 & 1112/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Amruta Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. The Pr. Cit 199, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad-1 Vs. Opp. Raipur Darwaja, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaica0877A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Astha Maniar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr 18/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

reassessment proceedings 3.2 The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the limitation period u/s 263(2) of the Act will be calculated from the date of passing of original assessment order dated 04.11.2015 and thus, the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act dated 29.02.2024 is barred by limitation 4. The Ld. PCIT

AMRUTA FABRICS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1110, 1111 & 1112/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Amruta Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. The Pr. Cit 199, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad-1 Vs. Opp. Raipur Darwaja, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaica0877A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Astha Maniar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr 18/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

reassessment proceedings 3.2 The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the limitation period u/s 263(2) of the Act will be calculated from the date of passing of original assessment order dated 04.11.2015 and thus, the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act dated 29.02.2024 is barred by limitation 4. The Ld. PCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

section 115BBE, and initiated penalty proceedings under\nsection 271AAC. The AO determined the total assessed income at Rs.\n5,63,17,850/- and issued demand and penalty notices accordingly.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals) and contended that the reassessment proceedings\nand the addition made therein were illegal and unsustainable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section_115BBE, and initiated penalty proceedings under\nsection 271AAC. The AO determined the total assessed income at Rs.\n5,63,17,850/- and issued demand and penalty notices accordingly.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals) and contended that the reassessment proceedings\nand the addition made therein were illegal and unsustainable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

section_115BBE, and initiated penalty proceedings under\nsection 271AAC. The AO determined the total assessed income at Rs.\n5,63,17,850/- and issued demand and penalty notices accordingly.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals) and contended that the reassessment proceedings\nand the addition made therein were illegal and unsustainable

INFINITY INTERNATIONAL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

reassessment proceedings may kindly be dropped in the larger interest of justice. 6. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of GKN DRIVE SHAFT (INDIA) LTD. vs. ITO (259 ITR 19), we request Your Goodself to pass a speaking order dealing with all the objections raised hereinabove against the reasons recorded for Infinity International

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not rightly responded the assessment and consequential passing the assessment order when the same is based on change of opinion as the original assessment was on the very same issue itself finalized. In fact, the second reopening is based

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not rightly responded the assessment and consequential passing the assessment order when the same is based on change of opinion as the original assessment was on the very same issue itself finalized. In fact, the second reopening is based

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not rightly responded the assessment and consequential passing the assessment order when the same is based on change of opinion as the original assessment was on the very same issue itself finalized. In fact, the second reopening is based

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings pursuant thereto. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has not rightly responded the assessment and consequential passing the assessment order when the same is based on change of opinion as the original assessment was on the very same issue itself finalized. In fact, the second reopening is based

THE DCIT (INT.TAXA.), VADODARA vs. SHRI AJOY KANAIYALAL KHANDHERIA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

259 93,93,635 18/04/2005 to 30/11/2005) Total of Interest (9% + 11 2,67,90,917 2,18,73,905 4,86,64,822 15% + 15%) Total Amount (Column 12 8,22,25,640 6,71,34,537 14,93,60,177 7 + 11) Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 2.2. The ownership dispute between the Thakor

RANJITSINH NARSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.451/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13\nRanjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela\n3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali\nMandir\nPethapur, Gandhinagar\nGandhinagar – 382 610\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nWard-3\nGandhinagar\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AFEPV 3269 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Hardik Vora, Advocate\nRevenue by :\nShri R.N. Dso

259\n2,18,73,905\n6,71,34,537\nTotal\n6,78,08,320\n2,03,42,496\n1,25,44,539\n10,06,95,355\n90,62,582\n3,02,08,605\n93,93,635\n4,86,64,822\n14,93,60,177\nITA No. 451/Ahd/2024\nRanjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela vs. ITO\nAsst. Year

NIRAV CHANDRAKANTBHAI BHALANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1041/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year :2016-17 Nirav Chandrakantbhai The Pr.Cit,Ahmedabad-1 Bhalani बनाम/ Ahmedabad-380 015 Plot No.9, Vibhapark Society V/S. Adhewada, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bcipb 8197 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/03/2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Pcit” In Short] In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani Vs. The Pcit Asst. Year : 2016-17

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” in short) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani vs. The PCIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 Facts of the case: 2. The assessee is an individual who filed his original return of income