YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR vs. GELOT AGRI EXPORTS, PALANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

reassessment; 11. Referring to the same, he pointed out that as per the provision of sub-section (2) underreporting income is only that income assessed, which is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a)of sub-section (i) of section 143. He also drew our attention to sub-section (3) of section 270A

GELOT AGRI EXPORTS,DEESA vs. ITO WD 1 PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

reassessment; 11. Referring to the same, he pointed out that as per the provision of sub-section (2) underreporting income is only that income assessed, which is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a)of sub-section (i) of section 143. He also drew our attention to sub-section (3) of section 270A

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return was accompanied by supporting documents, including sale deeds, valuation reports from a registered valuer reflecting fair market value as on 01.04.2001, details of co-ownership, computation of long-term

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return was accompanied by supporting documents, including sale deeds, valuation reports from a registered valuer reflecting fair market value as on 01.04.2001, details of co-ownership, computation of long-term

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

reassessment orders, the assessee preferred\nappeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised\njurisdictional grounds challenging the reopening, as well as substantive\ngrounds against the additions made under section 69A of the Act. It was\nspecifically contended by the assessee that:\n•\nThe reopening of assessment was invalid as the reasons for reopening\nwere either recorded

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

GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGA, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40,84,182/- under Section 80P of Chapter VIA of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for 'Complete Scrutiny' under CASS for the following reasons: Gandhinagar District Co. Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 3– i. Large specified domestic transactions (Form 3 CED) ii. Large income shown by large contractors and iii. Mismatch between income/receipt

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

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

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

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

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

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

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

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell

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

reassessment proceedings with respect to ledger account seized were based on invalid order and were without jurisdiction. Reference is also drawn to the judgment/decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, Civil Appeal No. 911 of 2022 (SLP) (C) No. 29096 of 2019 and oths. order dated 06.04.2023 and PCIT vs. Abhishar Buildwell