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)

reassessment (u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B) 7 Assessed Income Rs.90,350/- (same Rs.1,10,350/- as returned) (same as returned) ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 4 8 TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment proceedings can only be added if addition on an issue for which assessment was reopened is being made. For buttressing his proposition and explaining the position of law, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, reported in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 1. He also made reliance

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment proceedings can only be added if addition on an issue for which assessment was reopened is being made. For buttressing his proposition and explaining the position of law, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani, reported in [2013] 30 taxmann.com 1. He also made reliance

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

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

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

section 68 of the Act on account of deposits in the assessee’s account with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., treating the entire credits as unexplained. 51. During the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished a detailed source-wise bifurcation of the deposits aggregating to Rs.77,23,98,233/-, comprising

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

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

section 68 of the Act on account of deposits in the assessee’s account with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., treating the entire credits as unexplained. 51. During the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished a detailed source-wise bifurcation of the deposits aggregating to Rs.77,23,98,233/-, comprising

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

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

section 68 of the Act on account of deposits in the assessee’s account with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., treating the entire credits as unexplained. 51. During the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished a detailed source-wise bifurcation of the deposits aggregating to Rs.77,23,98,233/-, comprising

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

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

section 68 of the Act on account of deposits in the assessee’s account with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., treating the entire credits as unexplained. 51. During the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished a detailed source-wise bifurcation of the deposits aggregating to Rs.77,23,98,233/-, comprising

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

reassessment proceedings, vide submission dated 04.05.2023, as well as during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contended that purchase of under construction house should be considered as construction house (to be completed within 3 years) and not as purchase of house within 2 years. The assessee in this case had invested net sale consideration in an under

PARTH DINESH PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.137/Ahd/2024 & 138/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Parth Dinesh Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 18/19, Utkarsh Society Ward-1, V/S. Opp. Market Yard Patan – 384 265 Tal. Visnagar, Mehsana Gujarat – 384 315 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwrpp 7811 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of Reassessment Orders Framed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer /Ao”] For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2015–16 & 2016–17, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common

reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015–16, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under section 68 of the Act aggregating to Rs.86,62,160/-, comprising Rs.32,50,000/- received from five specific parties connected with the entry operator and Rs.54,12,160/- from other lenders. The five parties through whom Rs.32,50,000/- was received were: ITA Nos.137 & 138/Ahd/2024 Parth Dinesh

PARTH DINESH PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015–16, the\nAssessing Officer (AO) made additions under section 68 of the Act\naggregating to Rs.86,62,160/-, comprising Rs.32,50,000/- received from five\nspecific parties connected with the entry operator and Rs.54,12,160/- from\nother lenders. The five parties through whom Rs.32,50,000/- was received\nwere:\nName of the Party

SACHINKUMAR PREMANANDBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Sachinkumar Premanandbhai Patel Ito, Ward-1 Nr.Old Post Office Vs. Anand. Bhalej Anand Umreth, Gujarat Pan : Auhpp 8057 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Sigh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025

54 was claimed and that the income had escaped assessment. Various statutory notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued, and in the absence of compliance, assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147, making an addition of Rs.45,00,000/-. 3.3 The assessee challenged the said assessment before the CIT(A), NFAC. In the statement

VINODKUMAR S TOTLA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54 of the Act. Thus, withdrawal of deduction claimed in return of income was rightly withdrawn by passing order under Section 154. Therefore, the related ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had entered into a registered banakhat with the seller on 23-02-1987. He drew our attention

AMRUTBHAI G PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on preliminary legal ground alone without going into merits of the case

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

reassessment held to be not valid. Section 292BB does not have retrospective effect. - The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Ramesh Abaji Walavalkar Vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 54

THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI PARIMAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2366/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

reassessment held to be not valid. Section 292BB does not have retrospective effect. - The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Ramesh Abaji Walavalkar Vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 54

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.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

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