THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

47, 48 & 49 the picture becomes clear. For the purpose of holding period, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of section 2(42A) of the Act, wherein the short term capital asset is defined and as per the Explanation of the said section, the period for which the asset is held by the assessee

M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

47 tothe following effect: "Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers.- (xiii) where a firm is succeeded by a company in the business carried on by it as a resultof which the firm sells or otherwise transfers any capital asset or intangible asset to thecompany." 19. Now, the stage is set to analyse the case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

47 tothe following effect: "Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers.- (xiii) where a firm is succeeded by a company in the business carried on by it as a resultof which the firm sells or otherwise transfers any capital asset or intangible asset to thecompany." 19. Now, the stage is set to analyse the case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

47 tothe following effect: "Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers.- (xiii) where a firm is succeeded by a company in the business carried on by it as a resultof which the firm sells or otherwise transfers any capital asset or intangible asset to thecompany." 19. Now, the stage is set to analyse the case

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

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

AMIT GIRDHARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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. I.T.A No. 811/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Amit Girdharbhai Patel vs. ACIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income

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, 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

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

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

47,473/- for different reasons/ items of income. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the validity of the assessment carried out under section 147 of the Act on the reasoning that notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the AO was not served upon the assessee. However, the learned CIT-A rejected

BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47(vi) r.w.s. 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. vi. Cost of shares of amalgamated company in the hands of shareholders, received as consideration for transfer of shares of amalgamating company, to be same as the cost of shares of amalgamating company under section 49(2) of the Act. ITA Nos.1439/Ahd/2011, 42/Ahd/2012, 597/Ahd/2014, 2249/Ahd/2018 & IT(SS)A No.357/Ahd/18 Bodal

M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADD.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47(vi) r.w.s. 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. vi. Cost of shares of amalgamated company in the hands of shareholders, received as consideration for transfer of shares of amalgamating company, to be same as the cost of shares of amalgamating company under section 49(2) of the Act. ITA Nos.1439/Ahd/2011, 42/Ahd/2012, 597/Ahd/2014, 2249/Ahd/2018 & IT(SS)A No.357/Ahd/18 Bodal

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47(vi) r.w.s. 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. vi. Cost of shares of amalgamated company in the hands of shareholders, received as consideration for transfer of shares of amalgamating company, to be same as the cost of shares of amalgamating company under section 49(2) of the Act. ITA Nos.1439/Ahd/2011, 42/Ahd/2012, 597/Ahd/2014, 2249/Ahd/2018 & IT(SS)A No.357/Ahd/18 Bodal

BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47(vi) r.w.s. 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. vi. Cost of shares of amalgamated company in the hands of shareholders, received as consideration for transfer of shares of amalgamating company, to be same as the cost of shares of amalgamating company under section 49(2) of the Act. ITA Nos.1439/Ahd/2011, 42/Ahd/2012, 597/Ahd/2014, 2249/Ahd/2018 & IT(SS)A No.357/Ahd/18 Bodal

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