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, WARD2(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

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

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceeding by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.06.2021. Thereafter, as per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022) dated 04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, the order under

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceeding by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.06.2021. Thereafter, as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022) dated 04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, the order under

WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceeding by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.06.2021. Thereafter, as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005/2022) dated 04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, the order under

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

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

70,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act in toto. 3.3 In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted entire addition made by the Assessing officer more particularly when the Assessing Officer has never provided break up of quantum deposits added u/s 68 of the Act till

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

70,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act in toto. 3.3 In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted entire addition made by the Assessing officer more particularly when the Assessing Officer has never provided break up of quantum deposits added u/s 68 of the Act till

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

70,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act in toto. 3.3 In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted entire addition made by the Assessing officer more particularly when the Assessing Officer has never provided break up of quantum deposits added u/s 68 of the Act till

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

70,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act in toto. 3.3 In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted entire addition made by the Assessing officer more particularly when the Assessing Officer has never provided break up of quantum deposits added u/s 68 of the Act till

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

70,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act in toto. 3.3 In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted entire addition made by the Assessing officer more particularly when the Assessing Officer has never provided break up of quantum deposits added u/s 68 of the Act till

DEWARKADHISH DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 635 To 637/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2015-16 To 2017-18) Dwarkadhish Developers, The Deputy Commissioner Plot No. H-3066/4, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Dwarkadhish Residency, Central Circle-2, Esic Hospital Road, Vadodara. Gidc Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfd8537F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

reassessments and the additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) passed separate orders for each ITA Nos.635 to 637/Ahd/2025. Dwarkadhish Developers vs.D CIT A.Ys 2015-16 to 2017-18) 3 year, exercising powers under the amended provisions of section 153(3) and the newly inserted proviso to section

DEWARKADHISH DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 635 To 637/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2015-16 To 2017-18) Dwarkadhish Developers, The Deputy Commissioner Plot No. H-3066/4, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Dwarkadhish Residency, Central Circle-2, Esic Hospital Road, Vadodara. Gidc Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393002. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfd8537F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

reassessments and the additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) passed separate orders for each ITA Nos.635 to 637/Ahd/2025. Dwarkadhish Developers vs.D CIT A.Ys 2015-16 to 2017-18) 3 year, exercising powers under the amended provisions of section 153(3) and the newly inserted proviso to section