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, WARD2(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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2,10,62,866 (Unexplained (Unexplained transactions) transactions) ITA Nos.595 & 596/Ahd/2023 The DCIT vs. Siddheswari Infrastructure Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - Rs.3,85,82,434 - Rs.36,50,754 (Excess (Estimated profit @ depreciation on heavy 20% of bogus sales on machinery) Rs.23

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) ,AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2,10,62,866 (Unexplained (Unexplained transactions) transactions) ITA Nos.595 & 596/Ahd/2023 The DCIT vs. Siddheswari Infrastructure Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - Rs.3,85,82,434 - Rs.36,50,754 (Excess (Estimated profit @ depreciation on heavy 20% of bogus sales on machinery) Rs.23

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

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133(6), nor were the creditors summoned under section 131 to verify their creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. 41. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and held

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

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133(6), nor were the creditors summoned under section 131 to verify their creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. 41. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and held

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 proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133(6), nor were the creditors summoned under section 131 to verify their creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. 41. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and held

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

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

reassessment proceedings. However, it is an admitted position that the AO did not carry out any independent verification of these materials—no enquiries were made under section 133(6), nor were the creditors summoned under section 131 to verify their creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. 41. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and held

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may raise.” 16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

42,024/- by 30.11.2016. However, the assessee paid only\nRs.4,18,096/-, failing to comply with the full payment requirement under\nthe Scheme. Consequently, the declaration under IDS was treated as\ninvalid.\n3.2 Based on this, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that\nincome had escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice under\nsection

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated by the JAO vide notice dtd. 05-04-2022 after introduction of e- I.T.A Nos. 2254 to 2261/Ahd/2025 VankarDayabhai, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Assessment/Faceless Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A of the Act and hence, the notice issued by the JAO is without jurisdiction and illegal