DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) ,AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 145 of the Act. Thus, any estimation of profit without proper rejection was unsustainable. The assessee also pointed out that differences in net income declared in the books of accounts versus the AO’s estimation were attributable to legitimate claims, such as donations, depreciation, and partner remuneration. The assessee emphasized that these discrepancies had been properly disclosed in their

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 595 & 596/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively The Dcit Siddheswari Infrastructure बनाम/ Circle-1(3) B-101, Shakti Enclave V/S. Ahmedabad Judges Bungalows Road Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmfs 3587 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rignesh K. Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 145 of the Act. Thus, any estimation of profit without proper rejection was unsustainable. The assessee also pointed out that differences in net income declared in the books of accounts versus the AO’s estimation were attributable to legitimate claims, such as donations, depreciation, and partner remuneration. The assessee emphasized that these discrepancies had been properly disclosed in their

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio, as the necessary jurisdictional requirements for valid reopening were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.19,51,73

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio, as the necessary jurisdictional requirements for valid reopening were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.19,51,73

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio, as the necessary jurisdictional requirements for valid reopening were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.19,51,73

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio, as the necessary jurisdictional requirements for valid reopening were not fulfilled. Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.19,51,73

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

section 69A of the Act. Both the grounds raised by the Revenue are\ndismissed.\n Assessment Year 2014–15 (ITA No. 961/Ahd/2024)\n12.\nThe addition in the present year was made by the Assessing Officer on\nthe grounds that the assessee incurred a fictitious loss of Rs.1,40,65,890/- on\naccount of transactions in the scrip Looks Health Services

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

BHANSALI FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 73 of the Act. However, while framing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer had discarded that stand and proceeded to disallow

BHANSALI FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Section 73 of the Act. However, while framing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer had discarded that stand and proceeded to disallow

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,BARODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Acit, Cir.2(1)(2) Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vs Baroda. Race Course Circle, Baroda Pan : Aadcm 7339 H

section 115JB was determined at Rs.2,77,73,370/- by disallowing the additional depreciation claimed in the return of income. It is, thereafter 148-notice was issued for the excess claim of “prior period expenditure” of Rs.16,02,98,000/-. Reassessment

DALPAT BARAIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

section 69A of the Act. Both the grounds raised by the Revenue are\ndismissed.\n Assessment Year 2014–15 (ITA No. 961/Ahd/2024)\n12. The addition in the present year was made by the Assessing Officer on\nthe grounds that the assessee incurred a fictitious loss of Rs.1,40,65,890/- on\naccount of transactions in the scrip Looks Health Services

MANISH RANJAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2015–16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 69A of the Act. Both the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Assessment Year 2014–15 (ITA No. 961/Ahd/2024) 12. The addition in the present year was made by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the assessee incurred a fictitious loss of Rs.1,40,65,890/- on account of transactions in the scrip Looks Health Services

SUNIL PIYUSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. -THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

reassessment order contains no finding invoking section 270A(9) or identifying circumstances of misreporting. The penalty notice is templated and conclusory, and cannot form the basis for denying immunity. 7. That the voluntary payments made by the Appellant of Rs.29,490 (on 27.02.2025) and Rs.8,669 (on 15.08.2025), were made voluntarily without prejudice to avoid hardship, and are liable

DIPIKABEN KANIYALAL PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Principal Commissioner Of Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Income-Tax, Prop. Of Shivam Roadways, बनाम/ Ahmedabad-3, 17, Bhuyangdev Society, Sola Ahmedabad Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad, Vs. Gujarat -380061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shailesh Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

reassessment was under section 153C and not under section 147. Therefore, order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act is not in accordance with the law. [3] That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Ahmedabad-3, has failed to appreciate the fact that, the assessment had been framed after due application of mind and through investigation

SHRI BABUBHAI SHANTILAL SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment were reopened for escapement of income to Rs. 52,73,470/- by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. However