THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

block booking of 5 flats in "Venus Parkland", the assessee company is not eligible for any kind of deduction within the purview of 80-IB of the Act as per clause(f) of Section 80IB(10). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case law, the Ld. CIT{A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

block booking of 5 flats in "Venus Parkland", the assessee company is not eligible for any kind of deduction within the purview of 80-IB of the Act as per clause(f) of Section 80IB(10). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case law, the Ld. CIT{A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

u/s 148 of the Act and passed reassessment order within framework of the Act and such notice is a valid notice. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us contended that the notice under

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

u/s 148 of the Act and passed reassessment order within framework of the Act and such notice is a valid notice. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us contended that the notice under

M/S. HARSIDDH QUARRY WORKS,ARAVALLI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

block/ survey No.100, khata No.169, Moje-Alva, (Vatrak), taluka Bayad, district Arvalli, Gujarat during the year under consideration out of which amount of Rs.20,01,000/- was invested through unexplained source of income as the assessee has failed to respond in this regard despite two specific opportunities. Further, the assessee firm also did not offer any explanation about the nature

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

u/s. 143(2) dated 08-09-1998 was served upon the appellant vide which the date of hearing was fixed on 16-09-1998 and the Authorised Representative of the assessee had attended the hearing on 16-09-1998. Thus, there is no substance in the second ground of appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ITA nos.1022 to 1025/AHD/2018

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

block assessment under section 153A;\nii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;\niii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of\nunabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to\nassess or reassess the ‘total income' taking into consideration the\nincriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material\navailable with the AO including the income

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings. In the case of Radheshyam B. Agrawal 61 taxmann.com 50 (Pune - Trib.), the ITAT held that once an assessment has been framed under section 158BA in relation to undisclosed income for block period as a result of search, Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148 for reopening of such assessment; reopening of assessee's assessment

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment was merely on change of opinion. 7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The reasons for reopening of the assessment of the assessee, as recorded by the Assessing Officer, are as under:- “ANNEXURE Reasons for reopening

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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

u/s 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended