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)

reassessment order requires to be quashed as void-ab-initio 5. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the AO had failed to furnish the copy of material or evidences relied upon including statements recorded as referred to and relied upon in the reasons recorded, along with an opportunity of cross examination of such persons

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)

reassessment order requires to be quashed as void-ab-initio 5. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the AO had failed to furnish the copy of material or evidences relied upon including statements recorded as referred to and relied upon in the reasons recorded, along with an opportunity of cross examination of such persons

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

147 r.w.s. 144B on 30th March, 2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue , and the said reassessment order was set aside by the ld. PCIT vide revisionary order dated 12.03.2024 passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263, and the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the demat account and pass fresh assessment after considering the judgment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

147 of the Act dated 29.12.2017, the AO inter alia made an addition of Rs.4 Crore on account of alleged unexplained cash credits under s.68 of the Act. 6.1 The AO reproduced the reasons recorded for revoking jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act in its re-assessment order and noted that search and seizure action under s.132

GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

147 of the Act dated 29.12.2017, the AO inter alia made an addition of Rs.4 Crore on account of alleged unexplained cash credits under s.68 of the Act. 6.1 The AO reproduced the reasons recorded for revoking jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act in its re-assessment order and noted that search and seizure action under s.132

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.

exempt income u/s 10(1), which got taxed owing to an exparte best judgment reassessment order u/s 144 read with Section 147

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…”

u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law. Reassessment made after four years without pointing out failure on my part to disclose material facts is bad in law. 3) Though return of income was filed no mandatory notice under sec. 143(2) has been issued during the assessment. So the assessment is void. 4) Reassessment is done

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(E) erred in fact and in law in invoking revision power u/s 263 of the Act on an issue of allowability of exemption

SMT. MANJULABEN B. 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. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA 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

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

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

SMT. MANJULABEN B. 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