THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

reassessment proceedings are found not tenable. This view is supported by the decision of various ITAT Benches. Some of such decisions are noted as under: ii. Without valid notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act 5.2.2 Having considered the above facts and submission of the assessee, the stand of the assessee is found some force for the reason

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHWETA MANISH JAIN, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice, the CIT(A) examined the matter and held that since the addition stood deleted on merits and no disallowance under section 14A had been made, the ground was infructuous. 5. The Department is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) allowing the appeal of the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions

GAUTAMBHAI NANSINH CHAUHAN,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings, notices under section 142(1) were issued on various dates calling for explanation regarding the source and nature of the high-value cash withdrawals. The assessee responded on 08.09.2023, submitting that he was appointed as an authorised agent of SBI’s Customer Service Centre (Grahak Seva Kendra) through its technology partner NICT Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and was providing

ANISHA RAOOF DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

281, 28th Floor, Kalpataru of Income Tax, Heights, Anand Circle, S.P. Complex, Dr. A. Nair Road, Income Tax Office, Agripada, Beside C.K. Hall, Vs. Mumbai – 400 011, Mayfair Road, Maharashtra. Anand – 388 001. [PAN – ACTPD 3111 C] (Gujarat) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R. Revenue by Shri S.K. Agal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement

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

281, 28th Floor, Kalpatur Circle-1(2), Heights, Dr. A.R. Nair Vs Baroda Road, Agripada, (Respondent) Mumbai-400011 PAN: ACTPD1157A (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R. Revenue by: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 26-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 19-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

281, the same should not be reopened and the order of reopening becomes bad in law. The Ld. AR further submitted that there was no order under Section 127 of the Act passed/communicated for transfer of jurisdiction from ITO, Circle-I, Gandhinagar to DCIT, Circle Gandhinagar. 7. The Ld. DR submitted that there was an internal transfer for which

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a\ndeduction that was not claimed in the original return. Thus, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated on the basis of an action under Section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilized by the\nassessee to seek a relief not claimed earlier and thus cannot seek a review of a concluded

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. DUSHYANT U PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

281 Sachin M. Prajapati 356700 1372296 Kalpesh B. Prajapati 356700 1372296 Yatin K. Prajapati. 356700 1372296 Total 1070100 4116888 4116888 B. No. 256 Kalpesh B. Prajapti 993080 2904155 2904155 Grand 19090280 72527970 Total On the basis of above discussion it is proved that the assessee has paid on money in cash to the tune

THE ACIT, (INT. TAXA.), VADODARA vs. SHRI VIJAYKUMAR VASANTBHAI PATEL, NADIAD

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

281 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue when the same was filed on 30.03.2021. Similarly, the registry has noted that there is a delay of 19 days in filing the Cross Objection by the Assesee when it was filed on 22.07.2021. Both these dates were under the Covid-19 period wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court

SHRI KIRIT KALIDAS GAJJAR,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2444/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Shri Kirit Kalidas Gajjar, I.T.O, 1807, Pada Pole, Vs. Ward-1(1)(2), Gandhi Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380001. Pan: Abepg4967B

reassess the income in the garb of income escaping assessment. There is no definition provided under the Act with respect to the term reasons to believe. However the Hon’ble courts time and again have propounded that there has to be vital link or live link between the A.Y. 2012-13 6 reasons recorded for initiating the proceedings