SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment proceedings, which clearly suggest that the appellant had participated in assessment proceedings. Considering such fact, plea taken by the appellant cannot be accepted

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment proceedings, which clearly suggest that the appellant had participated in assessment proceedings. Considering such fact, plea taken by the appellant cannot be accepted

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment proceedings, which clearly suggest that the appellant had participated in assessment proceedings. Considering such fact, plea taken by the appellant cannot be accepted

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 148 of the Act from DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad. The appellant has also complied with such notice, filed return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and submissions in reassessment proceedings, which clearly suggest that the appellant had participated in assessment proceedings. Considering such fact, plea taken by the appellant cannot be accepted

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

Section 282 of the 1961 Act. The AO could have deputed inspector to paste the notice at the premises of the assessee at Ahmedabad. The inspector could have made enquiries with the neighbours , and then factual position could have emerged that the assessee has moved to Mumbai. The assessee has claimed that she has not received the notices issued

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-:-

282 Taxman 490 (Gujarat). In the said case, search and seizure under section 132 was carried out in case of 'J' and it was found that "J" was managing and controlling multiple companies which were involved in providing accommodation entries and documents unearthed during search showed that petitioner-company had taken accommodation entries from one of such concerns

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets