THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment.] The ld.counsel for the assessee thereafter drew our attention to the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case of the assessee and argued that the same did not reveal

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

VIII(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

VIII(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

VIII(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and\nnot Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words,\nalthough the reopening may be after the expiry of four years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year, yet it would not be necessary

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, although the reopening may be after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, yet it would not be necessary

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, although the reopening may be after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, yet it would not be necessary

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, although the reopening may be after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, yet it would not be necessary

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 68/69A of the Act because based on the investigations made and the findings therefrom the AO has the basis of to be not satisfied with the explanations furnished by the appellant. The satisfaction of the AO is not arbitrary and is not based on whims and fancy". (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

viii) The AO has also referred to statement of Mr. Jigar Trivedi recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act on 6/12/2019 and 10/12/2019 (the relevant extracts are reproduced at page No. 47 to 51 of Assessment Order) wherein he had admitted that cash was generally deposited in paper concerns bank account, amount was transferred to three companies' bank account

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

viii) The AO has also referred to statement of Mr. Jigar Trivedi recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act on 6/12/2019 and 10/12/2019 (the relevant extracts are reproduced at page No. 47 to 51 of Assessment Order) wherein he had admitted that cash was generally deposited in paper concerns bank account, amount was transferred to three companies' bank account

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

viii) The AO has also referred to statement of Mr. Jigar Trivedi recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act on 6/12/2019 and 10/12/2019 (the relevant extracts are reproduced at page No. 47 to 51 of Assessment Order) wherein he had admitted that cash was generally deposited in paper concerns bank account, amount was transferred to three companies' bank account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed that the total receipt of on-money cannot be considered as income and the income has to be considered at 15% of on-money receipt and it had declared more cash than such computed income in the IDS 2016 scheme and requested for telescoping of unaccounted cash expenses incurred by the assessee. However

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed that the total receipt of on-money cannot be considered as income and the income has to be considered at 15% of on-money receipt and it had declared more cash than such computed income in the IDS 2016 scheme and requested for telescoping of unaccounted cash expenses incurred by the assessee. However

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed that the total receipt of on-money cannot be considered as income and the income has to be considered at 15% of on-money receipt and it had declared more cash than such computed income in the IDS 2016 scheme and requested for telescoping of unaccounted cash expenses incurred by the assessee. However

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed that the total receipt of on-money cannot be considered as income and the income has to be considered at 15% of on-money receipt and it had declared more cash than such computed income in the IDS 2016 scheme and requested for telescoping of unaccounted cash expenses incurred by the assessee. However

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

VIII. Grounds of Appeal in ITA No.67/Ahd/2023 for AY 2019-20 (Revenue’s appeal): IT(SS)A No.1/Ahd/2023 Kailash Ramavatar Goenka vs. ACIT and seven other appeals (By Assessee and By Revenue) Asst. Years : 2016-17 to 2019-20 “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment is liable to be dismissed. On Merits (A.Y. 2010-11) 13. The additions have been made by the AO on primarily two counts for the impugned year under consideration. Firstly, the AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in providing contrived losses to various parties on sale of certain illiquid commodities on the NMCE