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

reassess income under section 147 of the Act is under the obligation to issue a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In case the AO ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2008-09 & 2017-18 22 has not done so, the order framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act becomes invalid. In the present case

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

34,45,204/- was made as unexplained money under section 69A and no proceedings under section 263 had yet been initiated, while in Assessment Year 2015-16 an addition of Rs.3,59,62,896/- was similarly made by applying presumptive percentages on bank credits and again no Jatinkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 - 8– revision under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

34,300/- in A.Y. 2015–16, along with an alleged unsecured loan\nentry of Rs.10,48,363/-.\n3. 1. These were all stated to have been routed through known entry\noperators and manipulated brokers.\n3. 2. The AO proceeded to frame the reassessment orders dated 30.03.2022\nunder section

ASSISTANT 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

34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development

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

34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development

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

34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development

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

34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development

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

34,194/- for A.Y. 2014-15. A survey action under Section 133A was carried ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 3– out on 30.10.2018 at the business premises of the assessee at 418, Gala Empire, Ahmedabad in connection with the development

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

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

reassessment stage. During appellate proceedings before us, no material has been brought on record by the Departmental Representative to controvert the assessee’s explanation or to dispute the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). 32. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the CIT(A) in treating the amount of Rs.12,04,10,000/- as explained inter-bank

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment stage. During appellate proceedings before us, no material has been brought on record by the Departmental Representative to controvert the assessee’s explanation or to dispute the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). 32. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the CIT(A) in treating the amount of Rs.12,04,10,000/- as explained inter-bank

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment stage. During appellate proceedings before us, no material has been brought on record by the Departmental Representative to controvert the assessee’s explanation or to dispute the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). 32. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the CIT(A) in treating the amount of Rs.12,04,10,000/- as explained inter-bank

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment stage. During appellate proceedings before us, no material has been brought on record by the Departmental Representative to controvert the assessee’s explanation or to dispute the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). 32. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the CIT(A) in treating the amount of Rs.12,04,10,000/- as explained inter-bank

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment, as provided under section 147 read with section 149, was over and the liability for assessment was completely extinguished. Thus, at the time of issuance of the notices for reopening and at the time of amendment, the right to initiate proceedings under section 147 was extinguished for certain assessment years as per the old provisions. The Hon’ble Kerala

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment, as provided under section 147 read with section 149, was over and the liability for assessment was completely extinguished. Thus, at the time of issuance of the notices for reopening and at the time of amendment, the right to initiate proceedings under section 147 was extinguished for certain assessment years as per the old provisions. The Hon’ble Kerala

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment, as provided under section 147 read with section 149, was over and the liability for assessment was completely extinguished. Thus, at the time of issuance of the notices for reopening and at the time of amendment, the right to initiate proceedings under section 147 was extinguished for certain assessment years as per the old provisions. The Hon’ble Kerala

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment, as provided under section 147 read with section 149, was over and the liability for assessment was completely extinguished. Thus, at the time of issuance of the notices for reopening and at the time of amendment, the right to initiate proceedings under section 147 was extinguished for certain assessment years as per the old provisions. The Hon’ble Kerala

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment, as provided under section 147 read with section 149, was over and the liability for assessment was completely extinguished. Thus, at the time of issuance of the notices for reopening and at the time of amendment, the right to initiate proceedings under section 147 was extinguished for certain assessment years as per the old provisions. The Hon’ble Kerala

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment, as provided under section 147 read with section 149, was over and the liability for assessment was completely extinguished. Thus, at the time of issuance of the notices for reopening and at the time of amendment, the right to initiate proceedings under section 147 was extinguished for certain assessment years as per the old provisions. The Hon’ble Kerala

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment, as provided under section 147 read with section 149, was over and the liability for assessment was completely extinguished. Thus, at the time of issuance of the notices for reopening and at the time of amendment, the right to initiate proceedings under section 147 was extinguished for certain assessment years as per the old provisions. The Hon’ble Kerala