SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investment in block no.77 Rs. 5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investment in block no.77 Rs. 5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investment in block no.77 Rs. 5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investment in block no.77 Rs. 5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investment in block no.77 Rs. 5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investment in block no.77 Rs. 5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investment in block no.77 Rs. 5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section

SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above, and the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed as infructuous

reassessment proceedings for this short reason alone. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, urges us not to be pedantic in approach and to take a look at the actual facts in the right perspective. He does not dispute that no addition was eventually made, as unexplained investment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above, and the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed as infructuous

reassessment proceedings for this short reason alone. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, urges us not to be pedantic in approach and to take a look at the actual facts in the right perspective. He does not dispute that no addition was eventually made, as unexplained investment

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

unexplained investment in land and disallowance under section 40A(2)(b), and the order of the AO deserved to be restored. 7. The learned Authorised Representative(AR) supported the order of the CIT(A) and placed reliance on his detailed findings. It was pointed out that the Assessing Officer had made the impugned additions solely on the basis of certain

SHRI NAUSHIK RAMANLAL DESAI,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, INT. TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 186/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-2012 Naushik Ramanlal Desai, Income Tax Officer, 61-A, Mittal Tower, Vs. International Taxation-2, Nariman Point, Ahmedabad, Mumbai-4000021. Pan: Ahapd9621P

reassessment proceedings as undertaken by the AO, should be set aside, and quashed as the said proceedings were invoked without complying with the pre-requisite as laid down in Section 147 read with Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), thereby the said proceedings being void ab initio and bad in law. Ground No.3 1. On facts

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNPOINT TRADING LIMITED, MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD

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

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, which had escaped assessment for F.Y. 2017–18.\n4. During the reassessment

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment by making addition of Rs.29,55,558/- and denied the claim of deduction made u/s.10(38) of the Act, added as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and also made addition of Rs.4,26,069/- as unexplained investment