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 147 Date of Reassessment 29.09.2021 29.09.2021 Order Key Additions by AO - Rs.1,38,65,603 - Rs.2,10,62,866 (Unexplained (Unexplained transactions) transactions) ITA Nos.595 & 596/Ahd/2023 The DCIT vs. Siddheswari Infrastructure Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - Rs.3,85,82,434 - Rs.36,50,754 (Excess (Estimated profit @ depreciation on heavy 20% of bogus sales on machinery) Rs.23

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

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

section laying down as a condition for the initiation of proceedings that the reasons which induced the CIT to accord sanction to proceed under s. 34 must also be communicated to the assessee. The ITO need not communicate to the assessee the reasons which led him to initiate the proceedings under s. 34. These reasons have to be considered

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 proceeding after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. 13.5 In addition to the above it is equally important to note that the AO at the time of recording the reasons to believe for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act was not in possession of the return of income. Thus in the absence

KUSHAL VINODKUMAR BHATT LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VINODKUMAR RAMANLAL BHATT,ANAND vs. THE ACIT (OSD), WARD-5, ANAND

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

Section 147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.\nI.T.A No. 752/Ahd/2025 Α.Υ. 2011-12\nKushal Vinodkumar Bhatt Legal Heir of Late Shri Vinodkumar Ramanlal Bhatt. vs. ACIT\nPage No\n2\n2. The registry has noted that there is delay of 96 days in filing

SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment. The appellant submits that the notice under Section 148 is bad in law. 4.0 The order passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad is bad in law and contrary to the facts. The CIT(A) has grossly failed to consider the facts and submissions and his decision is prejudicial and biased. 4.1 The appellant submits that

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 resulted in a taxable income of Rs.10,96

SHRI MUKESH R.SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

reassessment was made under section 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2007 which was further rectified by the AO vide order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 12.2.2008. Both these orders of the AO were upheld by the CIT(A), against which the ITA No.736/Ahd/2005 and 6 Others Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah and Another Vs. ACIT

SHRI MUKESH R.SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

reassessment was made under section 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2007 which was further rectified by the AO vide order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 12.2.2008. Both these orders of the AO were upheld by the CIT(A), against which the ITA No.736/Ahd/2005 and 6 Others Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah and Another Vs. ACIT

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENT.WARD-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

reassessment was made under section 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2007 which was further rectified by the AO vide order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 12.2.2008. Both these orders of the AO were upheld by the CIT(A), against which the ITA No.736/Ahd/2005 and 6 Others Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah and Another Vs. ACIT

SHRI MUKESH R.SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENT.WARD-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

reassessment was made under section 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2007 which was further rectified by the AO vide order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 12.2.2008. Both these orders of the AO were upheld by the CIT(A), against which the ITA No.736/Ahd/2005 and 6 Others Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah and Another Vs. ACIT

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial