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 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

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 of 'any other income' which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment, cannot be made. 101. In the light of the above stated discussion, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on hand. From the reasons recorded we note that the AO has proposed the additions in the reasons recorded as detailed under: On the basis of analysis base

MAHESH D.TEKCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Mahesh Tekchandani, Income-Tax Officer, 67, Shivalik Bungalows, Ward-3(3)(3), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aespt 5350 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.1 The Order Passed By U/S.250 Passed On 20.10.2023 By Cit(A)-Nfac Delhi Upholding The Addition Of Rs.28,72,000/- Made By A.O. Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The First Payment By Cheque Was Made On 03.02.2014 & The Final Purchase Deed Was Executed In Fy 2018-19. But No Evidence Pointed Out By Ao To Prove That The Alleged Cash Payment Was Made During The Previous Year Relevant To A.Y. 2012-13. 2 Mahesh D. Tekchandani Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13

60,23,000 by cheque & 28, 72000 by cash) paid up to 18.05.2011 (as mentioned in show cause notice) through cheque and cash is also mentioned in seized materials exactly tallied with the Agreement of sale as well as submission filed by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings. The name & mobile no. of Kaushal, who is one of the purchasers

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

60,000/- in unsecured loans, casting doubt on the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence or bank details to support the transactions, and accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated these amounts as unexplained and added them to the total income under section 68 of the Act. During the course of assessment

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

60,000/- in unsecured loans, casting doubt on the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence or bank details to support the transactions, and accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated these amounts as unexplained and added them to the total income under section 68 of the Act. During the course of assessment

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

60,000/- in unsecured loans, casting doubt on the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence or bank details to support the transactions, and accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated these amounts as unexplained and added them to the total income under section 68 of the Act. During the course of assessment

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

60,000/- in unsecured loans, casting doubt on the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence or bank details to support the transactions, and accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated these amounts as unexplained and added them to the total income under section 68 of the Act. During the course of assessment

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

60,000/- in unsecured loans, casting doubt on the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence or bank details to support the transactions, and accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated these amounts as unexplained and added them to the total income under section 68 of the Act. During the course of assessment

SHRI ATUL HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Atul Hiralal Shah, D.C.I.T, 8, Amrashirish Bungalows, Vs. Central Circle-1(2), Near Prahladnagar Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aljps4966M

60 days as per first proviso and accordingly the time limit expires on 9th May 2017 whereas the assessment has been framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 9- 3-2018 beyond the statutory time. The learned DR before us has contended that as per the 3rd Proviso below 11.8 to explanation to section 153B

KAMALKUMAR RAMKUMAR AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 132 of the Act carried out on 11.04.2017 in the case of Navratna Organisers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NODPL), a real estate developer. The Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee on the basis of information stating that the assessee had paid on-money in cash for the purchase of a residential unit from NODPL. During the reassessment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

reassessment proceedings and grants primacy to section 153C. As noted earlier, exercise of power under section 153C is governed without any stringent fetters of holding 'reason to believe' contemplated under section 147. Therefore, while exercise of overriding power under section 153C will render section 147 otiose, the converse case of clipping the powers available under section 147 in search cases

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

60,86,323/- under section 68 of the Act and also calculated tax under Section 115 BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

60,86,323/- under section 68 of the Act and also calculated tax under Section 115 BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

60,86,323/- under section 68 of the Act and also calculated tax under Section 115 BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHWETA MANISH JAIN, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment notice, the CIT(A) examined the matter and held that since the addition stood deleted on merits and no disallowance under section 14A had been made, the ground was infructuous. 5. The Department is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) allowing the appeal of the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

reassessment proceedings and grants primacy to section 153C. As noted earlier, exercise of power under section 153C is governed without any stringent fetters of holding 'reason to believe' contemplated under section 147. Therefore, while exercise of overriding power under section 153C will render section 147 otiose, the converse case of clipping the powers available under section 147 in search cases