GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

37(1). We find that the Assessing Officer had access to the relevant material and formed a view after examining the explanation of the assessee. Merely because a different view could be taken or further inquiries could have been made does not justify revision under section 263. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex v. CIT (supra

THE DCIT (INT.TAXA.), VADODARA vs. SHRI AJOY KANAIYALAL KHANDHERIA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

37), which exempts capital gains arising from the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, including any compensation or consideration enhanced by courts. However, the CIT(A) held that the interest on FDs made by the Civil Court does not qualify as "compensation or enhanced consideration" under the section's Explanation. The CIT(A) noted that the provisions of Sections

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

37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and 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

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

37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and 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

RANJITSINH NARSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.451/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13\nRanjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela\n3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali\nMandir\nPethapur, Gandhinagar\nGandhinagar – 382 610\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nWard-3\nGandhinagar\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AFEPV 3269 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Hardik Vora, Advocate\nRevenue by :\nShri R.N. Dso

37), which exempts capital gains arising from\nthe compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, including any compensation\nor consideration enhanced by courts. However, the CIT(A) held that the\ninterest on FDs made by the Civil Court does not qualify as \"compensation or\nenhanced consideration\" under the section's Explanation. The CIT(A) noted\nthat the provisions of Sections

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

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

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

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

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

37,140 * 15/100) against claim of the assessee of 8% of On Money as provided U/s. 44AD of the Act 5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting Ground of Appeal of Charging Interest U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee

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

37,140 * 15/100) against claim of the assessee of 8% of On Money as provided U/s. 44AD of the Act 5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting Ground of Appeal of Charging Interest U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee

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

37,140 * 15/100) against claim of the assessee of 8% of On Money as provided U/s. 44AD of the Act 5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting Ground of Appeal of Charging Interest U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee

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

37,140 * 15/100) against claim of the assessee of 8% of On Money as provided U/s. 44AD of the Act 5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting Ground of Appeal of Charging Interest U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee

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

37,140 * 15/100) against claim of the assessee of 8% of On Money as provided U/s. 44AD of the Act 5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting Ground of Appeal of Charging Interest U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be 'independent' and not 'borrowed' or 'dictated' satisfaction

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

reassessment ex parte and passed the order dated 23.05.2023 determining total income at Rs.4,28,64,954/-, comprising the following additions: i. Addition of Rs.2,91,23,300/- under section 69 of the Act, being unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property; and ii. Addition of Rs.1,37