GELOT AGRI EXPORTS,DEESA vs. ITO WD 1 PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

reassessment; 11. Referring to the same, he pointed out that as per the provision of sub-section (2) underreporting income is only that income assessed, which is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a)of sub-section (i) of section 143. He also drew our attention to sub-section (3) of section 270A

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

8) is independent of levy of penalty under sub Section (7) even if there is no under reported income. Under sub Section (1), the AO, Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner may direct that any person who has under-reported his income to pay penalty on such under-reported income. In our view, the mere fact that there

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

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

reassessment order, therefore the Revision proceedings is barred u/s. 263(1) of the Act. Further the reply of the assessee reads as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that proceedings for the levy of penalty are independent and separate from assessment proceedings and in the case of J.K.D. costa 133 ITR 7, Delhi their Lordship proceeded to state that

SUNIL PIYUSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. -THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

reassessment order contains no finding invoking section 270A(9) or identifying circumstances of misreporting. The penalty notice is templated and conclusory, and cannot form the basis for denying immunity. 7. That the voluntary payments made by the Appellant of Rs.29,490 (on 27.02.2025) and Rs.8,669 (on 15.08.2025), were made voluntarily without prejudice to avoid hardship, and are liable

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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." 10.1 As per sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the Act, if the Assessing Officer having regard

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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." 10.1 As per sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the Act, if the Assessing Officer having regard

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal