M/S MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE -4(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3142/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 M/S. Welspun Projects Limited, Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Known As Msk Project Vs. Ward-4(1), (India) Ltd.,) Vadodara. 707-708, Sterling Centre, R.C. Dutt Road, Vadodara.

260 ITR 321 (SC) : (2006) 150 Taxman 128 and similarly in the case of Danish Industries Ltd. Vs. income Tax Officer Ref No. (2004) 190 CTR (GuJ) 485: (2004) 271 ITR 340 (Guj): (2004) 140 Taxman 456 reassessment under section

M/S GREENWELL ORCHARDS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

260 (SC). Section 2(14), read with sections 28(i) and 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset (Surrender of plot) - Assessment year 2008- 09 - Assessee entered into a joint venture agreement for acquisition of a plot from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) - Allotment of plot was made by MIDC in February, 2006 - Assessee relinquished

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MEHUL PRATAP ASNANI,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. Nos. 3133/Ahd/2015 & 1659/Ahd/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2010-11)

reassessment or re-computation is made on the assesse or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order, under sections 250, 254, 260

SHAH JITENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL HUF,ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, and again the Principal CIT has initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act, to enquire into the same issue by observing that there was lack of enquiry on the part of the assessing officer. In our considered view, the Department has at various stages of proceedings (both during the course

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

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 147 for all assessment years. He recorded that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings solely on the basis of seized unaccounted cash book and supporting vouchers found during the search in the Venus Group at the premises known as Terrace of Crystal Arcade/Crystal Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. The CIT(A) held that the AO had duly recorded reasons

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 147 for all assessment years. He recorded that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment proceedings solely on the basis of seized unaccounted cash book and supporting vouchers found during the search in the Venus Group at the premises known as Terrace of Crystal Arcade/Crystal Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. The CIT(A) held that the AO had duly recorded reasons

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FALGUNI SURYAKANT THAKAR , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum appeal in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

260/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessment order passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144 for A.Y. 2009-10 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, without appreciating that the said assessment was validly made within the extended limitation period and in accordance with the provisions

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. In response thereto, the Assessee filed its Return of Income admitting total income of Rs.22,01,770/- on 30.04.2021. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessee purchased S.S. Cold, Rolled Patta/Patti and also produced tax invoices, which was not accepted by the AO and added as follows: Sr.No. Name of the party

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. In response thereto, the Assessee filed its Return of Income admitting total income of Rs.22,01,770/- on 30.04.2021. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessee purchased S.S. Cold, Rolled Patta/Patti and also produced tax invoices, which was not accepted by the AO and added as follows: Sr.No. Name of the party

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. In response thereto, the Assessee filed its Return of Income admitting total income of Rs.22,01,770/- on 30.04.2021. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessee purchased S.S. Cold, Rolled Patta/Patti and also produced tax invoices, which was not accepted by the AO and added as follows: Sr.No. Name of the party

SHRI RAOOF R DHANANI,,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on jurisdiction

260 ITR (St.) 219-221, also mentions that provisions of sections 153A, 153B and 153C were inserted to provide for assessment in the case of search or making requisition. [Para 16] I.T.A No. 3367/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 7 Shri Raoof R. Dhanani vs. ACIT The settled position of law is that if there is no ambiguity then, literal

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

260, to contend that third-party chats cannot determine the value of a different property. On merits, he emphasized the complete lack of corroboration, the time lag, the difference in property details, and the absence of any cash trail, relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese

SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147/148. From the so-called reasons, it was not at all discernible as to whether the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that, on the basis of the material which he had before him, income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was not valid. Principal Commissioner of Income

THE ITO, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 147/148. From the so-called reasons, it was not at all discernible as to whether the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that, on the basis of the material which he had before him, income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was not valid. Principal Commissioner of Income

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

260 (M.P.) in which it was held that the notice of reassessment on the basis of report of the Valuation Officer is not valid. It was held that DVO's report is only an information and not the material on the basis of which the assessment may be reopened. Such a report cannot be an arithmetic appreciation of the materials

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

260 (M.P.) in which it was held that the notice of reassessment on the basis of report of the Valuation Officer is not valid. It was held that DVO's report is only an information and not the material on the basis of which the assessment may be reopened. Such a report cannot be an arithmetic appreciation of the materials

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

260 (M.P.) in which it was held that the notice of reassessment on the basis of report of the Valuation Officer is not valid. It was held that DVO's report is only an information and not the material on the basis of which the assessment may be reopened. Such a report cannot be an arithmetic appreciation of the materials