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

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 initiated under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio, as the necessary jurisdictional requirements for valid reopening were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.19,51

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio, as the necessary jurisdictional requirements for valid reopening were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.19,51

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 initiated under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio, as the necessary jurisdictional requirements for valid reopening were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.19,51

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio, as the necessary jurisdictional requirements for valid reopening were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.19,51

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

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

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

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 proceedings. 7 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition made by AO of unaccounted income earned from various scripts u/s 69A of the Act though assessee is not found to be owner of any money, bullion or jewellery. 8 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHAH FOILS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1852/Ahd/2019 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1922/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 1. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. 1. The Ito, Ward-4(1)(3) बनाम/ 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 2. The Ito, 2. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. Ward-4(1)(3) 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaics 0490 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23.10.2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 stands dismissed. On the Grounds relating to addition of Rs.7,51,35,438/- u/s 69A of the Act: 12. Both

NA ROTO MACHINE & MOULDS INDIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

51,870/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the Order of the Ld. AO ignoring the fact that incriminating documents received during the course of survey operation at the premises of third party was merely a dump document and neither in the handwriting of the appellant nor have signature of the appellant

KAUSHAL HAZARILAL AGRAWAL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

51,028/- claimed under section 57 of the Act and also objected to the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 272(1)(d) of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(Appeals), however, observed that multiple notices of hearing under section 250 of the Act were issued to the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings through the ITBA