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

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

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

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., ,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 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

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., ,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

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

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

vii) The proceedings for Assessment year 2002-03 shall stand remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall determine as to whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure (direct or indirect) in relation to dividend income / income from mutual funds which does not form part of the total income as contemplated under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer

SIMATAJVAR YUSUFKHAN KHAN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

56(2)(vii)(a) of the I.T. Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that there is no agreement which is registered, as the right of the appellant, is contingent and thus, in absence of any transfer of any property, the amount of advance received could not have

SIMATAJVAR YUSUFKHAN KHAN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

56(2)(vii)(a) of the I.T. Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that there is no agreement which is registered, as the right of the appellant, is contingent and thus, in absence of any transfer of any property, the amount of advance received could not have

SIMATAJVAR YUSUFKHAN KHAN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1(5),, VADODARA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

56(2)(vii)(a) of the I.T. Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that there is no agreement which is registered, as the right of the appellant, is contingent and thus, in absence of any transfer of any property, the amount of advance received could not have

SIMATAJVAR YUSUFKHAN KHAN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1(5, VADODARA

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us Is The Same, Arising In The Backdrop Of Identical Set Of Facts, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common & Consolidated Order.

56(2)(vii)(a) of the I.T. Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that there is no agreement which is registered, as the right of the appellant, is contingent and thus, in absence of any transfer of any property, the amount of advance received could not have

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

reassessment shall be issued by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment year or years unless— (a) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more