SUNNY TARUNKUMAR DOSHI,JETPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment proceedings on the grounds of "inadequate consideration" as well as S.69 of the Act related to the purchase of immovable property. - The final assessment order made an addition under Section 56(2)(vii

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

vii), 28(ii)(c). The phrase 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of has been used in sections 37 and 57(iii). On going through the use of the above and other similar expressions in different parts of the Act, it is clearly borne out that these have not been used interchangeably. The Legislature is fully conscious of an employment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO by following the order of its predecessor in the own case of the assessee

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO by following the order of its predecessor in the own case of the assessee

BIMAL KESHAVLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was without examining the applicability of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Therefore

YOGESH MAFATLAL BHANSALI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali Ito, Ward-5(3)(1) 101, Shakuntal Appt Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Cn Vidhyalaya Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Aarpb 6394 H (Appellant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2025

Section 56(2)(vii) r.w.s. 50C r.w.s. 155(15) of the Act. 7. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

vii) was not satisfied is based on wrong assumption of facts. 14. The learned CIT(A) after considering facts in totality provided part relief to the assessee by observing as under: On careful consideration of entire facts, it is observed that Appellant has not submitted any details for advances written off in the case of Good Earth Resources Pvt. Limited

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SMT. NALINI ANIL AMIN,,ANAND vs. DCIT (INT.TAX),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 682/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Smt. Nalini Anilbhai Amin, D.C.I.T., C/O Kiran Patel & Co. C.A., Vs. (International Taxation), 3Rd Floor,Blue Corridor, Vadodara. Above New Anand Sports, 80Ft. Road, Anand-388001. Pan: Aizpa9772A

reassessment order per incuriam. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to (he extent of Rs.1,25,51,000/- out of addition made by the assessing officer on account of alleged unexplained cash receipts. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in treating the alleged amount received on transfer of capita