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

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 45(2) r.w.s. 2(47) and thereby making addition of Rs. 9,40,27,625/- (8,97,16,439 + 43,11,186) without considering various facts & legal aspects. 3. That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in confirming the addition made

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR vs. SHRI VALLABHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL, BHAVNAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal On

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 34 days in filing the above appeal. This appeal is filed before the Tribunal on I.T.A No. 07/Ahd/2021

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. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- 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 and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022

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. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- 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 and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022

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. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- 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 and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022

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. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- 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 and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022

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. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- 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 and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022

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. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- 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 and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022

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. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- 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 and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022

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. 13-03-2023 after introduction of e- 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 and also in violation of Notification No: 18/2022

THAKORBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3(1)(1), VADODARA

reassessment for A.Y. 2008-09. It was submitted that\nthe land sold by the assessee was ancestral agricultural land situated at village\nHanumanpura and that the sale transaction has to be appreciated in the\nbackdrop of revision of Jantri rates by the State Government with effect from\n01.04.2008. According to the counsel, in order to save stamp duty, the\npurchasers

SHAH JITENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL HUF,ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 148 had been issued upon the assessee on the basis of information that the assessee has entered into Shah Jitendrakumar Mafatlal HUF vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 7– transactions as fictitious loan entry operator beneficiary amounting to ₹ 47,50,000/- of Jignesh Shah. In the reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHWETA MANISH JAIN, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice, the CIT(A) examined the matter and held that since the addition stood deleted on merits and no disallowance under section 14A had been made, the ground was infructuous. 5. The Department is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) allowing the appeal of the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

reassessment, as the case maybe, under the said sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be extended by twelve months. Section 153 of the Act does not permit passing any order after the expiry of 33 months from the end of the assessment year i.e. AY 2016-17 in the present case. Therefore, the time limit for completing assessment

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

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

reassessment notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 under the erstwhile sections 148 to 151 by relying on Explanations in the Notification No. 20/2021, dated 31-3-2021 and Notification No. 38/2021, dated 27-4-2021 which extended applicability of aforesaid provision as they stood on 31-3- 2021, before commencement of Finance Act, 2021, beyond period