ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

income. Thus the reopening of the assessment on this issue also is bad in law. Even the addition, on merits, apparently, as discussed above, is not sustainable. 15.4 Though the first proviso to section 147 is not attracted in this year, however, the reasons recorded for reassessment being based upon incorrect facts, without application of mind, without correlating information received

GHANSHYAMBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

additional ground no. 8, the ld. D.R. submitted that the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B was an assessment order and therefore it cannot be treated as no assessment order passed u/s. 147 whether it has been accepted the return of the income

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

income. Thus the reopening of the assessment on this issue also\nis bad in law. Even the addition, on merits, apparently, as discussed above, is\nnot sustainable.\n15.4 Though the first proviso to section 147 is not attracted in this year,\nhowever, the reasons recorded for reassessment being based upon incorrect\nfacts, without application of mind, without correlating information received

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

income as per Assessing Officer’s belief. The contention of the ld. A.R. is that he was not given cross-examination of the persons whose statement was recorded and relied upon is also does not stand as the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 148 and initiated proceedings u/s. 147 and given independent findings which was not wholly and solely

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

income as per Assessing Officer’s belief. The contention of the ld. A.R. is that he was not given cross-examination of the persons whose statement was recorded and relied upon is also does not stand as the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 148 and initiated proceedings u/s. 147 and given independent findings which was not wholly and solely

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

income as per Assessing Officer’s belief. The contention of the ld. A.R. is that he was not given cross-examination of the persons whose statement was recorded and relied upon is also does not stand as the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 148 and initiated proceedings u/s. 147 and given independent findings which was not wholly and solely

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

income as per Assessing Officer’s belief. The contention of the ld. A.R. is that he was not given cross-examination of the persons whose statement was recorded and relied upon is also does not stand as the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 148 and initiated proceedings u/s. 147 and given independent findings which was not wholly and solely

DANABHAI BHARVAD,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

additions made by the AO vide reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 147, by treating the cash deposited in bank accounts as undisclosed income

CHANDRAKANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL HUF ,DABHOI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: The Final Hearing Of This Appeal Petition…”

reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s 147 read I.T.A No.485/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 13 Chandrkant Gordhanbhai Patel v. DCIT with Section 144 while computing total income , referred to return of income filed by the assessee on 28.03.2013(OLD ROI) , as under: Particulars In Rs. Return income filed on 2,61,400/- 28.03.2013(OLD ROI) Addition

LALITABEN DIPAKBHAI MODH,SURAT vs. PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

u/s. 148(2) only when it comes to the notice of the assessing officer subsequently in the course of the proceedings. In other words in terms of S. 147, the assessing officer can assess or reassess such income as mentioned in the reasons recorded and any other income only when the addition

THE ITO, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

reassess u/s 147 of the Act: Commissioner of Income Tax v Sfil Stock Broking Ltd.(2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: Held that, in the present case, the first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer was mere information received from the Deputy Director of Income

SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

reassess u/s 147 of the Act: Commissioner of Income Tax v Sfil Stock Broking Ltd.(2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: Held that, in the present case, the first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer was mere information received from the Deputy Director of Income

VIKAS CHANDRAKANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 147 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assessing total income at Rs. 1,06,33,890/- by upholding the addition of Rs 99,80,000/- without providing the opportunity of video conference despite categorically demanded in the written submission filed by the Appellant. Vikas Chandrakantbhai Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 3– 12. The appellant craves

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

income has escaped assessment. The assessee submitted that the assessee has legitimately invested in the shares of the aforesaid company, and held it for more than 18 months before selling, thus making it I.T.A No. 590/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 6 Ovez Arifbhai Lakhani v. Pr. CIT a long term capital gains. The investment was made through recognized stock

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1) (1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHAH FOILS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1852/Ahd/2019 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1922/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 1. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. 1. The Ito, Ward-4(1)(3) बनाम/ 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 2. The Ito, 2. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. Ward-4(1)(3) 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaics 0490 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23.10.2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read

addition of Rs. 7,51,35,438/- U/s. 69A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 when the assessee has failed to demonstrate that corresponding purchases were accounted for against the unaccounted sales made. Ground relating to challenging the reassessment proceedings u/s 147

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

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement