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

house property qua the properties held as stock in trade on account of deemed rental income. 6.4 As the assessee succeeds on the reasoning as elaborated in the preceding paragraph, therefore we are not inclined to adjudicate the other contentions raised by the Ld.AR for the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s

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

House, Central Circle 1(3), Room Vs. 100 Feet Hebatpur-Thaltej No. 304, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Nr. Sola Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- Off. S. G. Highway, 380009 Ahmedabad - 380054 .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Nupur Shah alongwith Shri Dhiren Shah, A.Rs

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

House, Central Circle 1(3), Room Vs. 100 Feet Hebatpur-Thaltej No. 304, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Nr. Sola Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- Off. S. G. Highway, 380009 Ahmedabad - 380054 .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Nupur Shah alongwith Shri Dhiren Shah, A.Rs

YASHODABEN MANEKLAL SONI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DAHOD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment proceedings and making the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. 6. The appellant craves, leave to add alter amend or withdraw any one or more grounds of appeal.” 2. The assessee, an individual filed its return of income on 28.03.2008 declaring total income of Rs.1,95,490/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently

SHRI VISHAL JAGDISHBHAI MEHTA,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property is hereby upheld. All the grounds are disposed off accordingly.” 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee contended before us that the original assessment order was passed on 24-3-2014, and while passing the original assessment order, all details in respect of the aforementioned property

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

u/s 147 of the Act in the present case were initiated on the assessee for the impugned assessment year on information I.T.A No. 2948/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Abdulvahed A.Sheikh vs. ITO received by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) that the assssee had sold immovable property during the year along with other Co-owners and his share

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

147 are applicable to facts of this case\nand the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a\ncase where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In\nthis case more than four years have lapsed from the end of\n assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to\nissue notice u/s 148 is to be obtain separately from

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein two additions were made by the AO, firstly with respect to the investment made by the assessee during the impugned assessment year on 24.09.2009 with NHAI of Rs. 10,00,000/- , and secondly income of Rs. 3,95,595/- from M/s Landmark Education Breakthrough Technologies Private Limited which was not 11 I.T.A

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

u/s. ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 6– 132 of the Act in the case of Sankalp Organisers Pvt. Ltd. at Sankalp House, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, various incriminating documents was found and seized, inventorised as A/1 to A/14. During the course of 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

u/s. ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 6– 132 of the Act in the case of Sankalp Organisers Pvt. Ltd. at Sankalp House, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, various incriminating documents was found and seized, inventorised as A/1 to A/14. During the course of 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

u/s. ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 6– 132 of the Act in the case of Sankalp Organisers Pvt. Ltd. at Sankalp House, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, various incriminating documents was found and seized, inventorised as A/1 to A/14. During the course of 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

u/s. ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 6– 132 of the Act in the case of Sankalp Organisers Pvt. Ltd. at Sankalp House, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, various incriminating documents was found and seized, inventorised as A/1 to A/14. During the course of 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

u/s. ITA Nos.248 to 250/Ahd/2023 & 325&326/Ahd/2023 Sai Krupa Developers vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Sai Krupa Developers Asst. Years –2014-15, 2016-17 & 2019-20 - 6– 132 of the Act in the case of Sankalp Organisers Pvt. Ltd. at Sankalp House, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, various incriminating documents was found and seized, inventorised as A/1 to A/14. During the course of assessment

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

147 of the Act. 13. The profit margin is high because consideration was in shares which were fixed in the agreement entered in the year 2002. At the time of the agreement the price of shares was very low. The value of technologies changed with the fluctuation in the price of the shares. It is also important to note

DIPIKABEN KANIYALAL PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Principal Commissioner Of Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Income-Tax, Prop. Of Shivam Roadways, बनाम/ Ahmedabad-3, 17, Bhuyangdev Society, Sola Ahmedabad Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad, Vs. Gujarat -380061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shailesh Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

reassessment was under section 153C and not under section 147. Therefore, order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act is not in accordance with the law. [3] That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Ahmedabad-3, has failed to appreciate the fact that, the assessment had been framed after due application of mind and through investigation

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reassessment. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be ‘independent’ and not ‘borrowed’ or ‘dictated’ satisfaction

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reassessment. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be ‘independent’ and not ‘borrowed’ or ‘dictated’ satisfaction