ANISH RAJNIKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

cash deposit of Rs. 21,51,200/- , this case requires to be reopened u/s 147 of the Act.” 4. Further, the statutory notice(s) u/s.142(1) of the Act were also issued by the AO to assessee , from time to time, I.T.A No. 200/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 4 Anish Rajnikant Shah v. ITO during the course of reassessment

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

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

147 of the Act. The CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the assessee’s appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 10. Before CIT(A), on merits, the assessee contended that all the deposits made in its bank account with the Society were duly recorded in its regular books of accounts and were explainable with reference to business receipts, loans

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

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

147 of the Act. The CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the assessee’s appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 10. Before CIT(A), on merits, the assessee contended that all the deposits made in its bank account with the Society were duly recorded in its regular books of accounts and were explainable with reference to business receipts, loans

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

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

147 of the Act. The CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the assessee’s appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 10. Before CIT(A), on merits, the assessee contended that all the deposits made in its bank account with the Society were duly recorded in its regular books of accounts and were explainable with reference to business receipts, loans

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

147 of the Act. The CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the assessee’s appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 10. Before CIT(A), on merits, the assessee contended that all the deposits made in its bank account with the Society were duly recorded in its regular books of accounts and were explainable with reference to business receipts, loans

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

147 and 143[3] of the I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 3 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. Since the issues involved in these appeals are abated/pending assessments and additions

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

147 and 143[3] of the I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 3 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. Since the issues involved in these appeals are abated/pending assessments and additions

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

147 and 143[3] of the I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 3 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. Since the issues involved in these appeals are abated/pending assessments and additions

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

147 and 143[3] of the I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 3 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. Since the issues involved in these appeals are abated/pending assessments and additions

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

147 and 143[3] of the I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 3 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. Since the issues involved in these appeals are abated/pending assessments and additions

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

147 and 143[3] of the I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 3 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. Since the issues involved in these appeals are abated/pending assessments and additions

ARVINDBHAI PUNABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly accepted in principle, and the issue is restored to the\nAssessing Officer for fresh adjudication in terms of directions\nabove.\n25. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee ...

u/s 133(6) of the Act to the Branch\nManager of the ICICI Bank Ltd. The AO proceeded to complete\nthe reassessment ex-parte on 13.12.2017. In the reassessment\norder, the Assessing Officer made a substantive addition of\nRs.16,94,93,035/- under section 68 of the Act, treating the said\namount as unexplained cash credit on account of large

PINKESHMUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Pinkeshkumar Melapchand Shah The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4) B-1, 1St Floor, Abhinandan Flat Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Kothari Tower Ramnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad 380005.Gujarat. Pan : Aeaps 0609 D. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

147 was furnished. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs.16,69,608/- u/s 69A being cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account generated out of duly accounted business sales by ignoring the debit / withdrawal side of same bank account. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and facts

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act and issued several notices of hearing to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in absence of any information / explanation by the assessee with respect to total deposits amounting to Rs. 28.70 crores in his bank account held with Renukamata Society, the Assessing Officer

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act and issued several notices of hearing to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in absence of any information / explanation by the assessee with respect to total deposits amounting to Rs. 28.70 crores in his bank account held with Renukamata Society, the Assessing Officer

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act and issued several notices of hearing to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in absence of any information / explanation by the assessee with respect to total deposits amounting to Rs. 28.70 crores in his bank account held with Renukamata Society, the Assessing Officer

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act and issued several notices of hearing to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in absence of any information / explanation by the assessee with respect to total deposits amounting to Rs. 28.70 crores in his bank account held with Renukamata Society, the Assessing Officer

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act and issued several notices of hearing to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in absence of any information / explanation by the assessee with respect to total deposits amounting to Rs. 28.70 crores in his bank account held with Renukamata Society, the Assessing Officer