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)

assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and impugned addition both are bad in law and requires to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate the fact that the reassessment order passed by the AO was invalid and bad in law in as much as the facts and figures mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening

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)

assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and impugned addition both are bad in law and requires to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate the fact that the reassessment order passed by the AO was invalid and bad in law in as much as the facts and figures mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 147 of the Act. (KAVITA P. KAUSHIK) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad.” 17. A perusal of the above reasons would indicate that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had made deposits in cash aggregating to Rs.1.63 crores. This cash deposit, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 147 of the Act. (KAVITA P. KAUSHIK) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad.” 17. A perusal of the above reasons would indicate that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had made deposits in cash aggregating to Rs.1.63 crores. This cash deposit, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

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

reopening present proceedings are incorrect. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment

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

reopening present proceedings are incorrect. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment

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

reopening present proceedings are incorrect. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the CIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid when such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all relevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 to reopen the assessment, then there would be no relevance to section 153A, which was inserted in the Act to deal exclusively with search cases. (b) The AO erred to notice that the legislators in their wisdom clearly spelt out the provisions of law applicable to search cases by using the word 'shall' to begin with section 153A, made

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the material, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon. There has to be something more than the report of DVO for the belief of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer cannot, merely on the basis of DVO's report, reopen the assessment

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the material, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon. There has to be something more than the report of DVO for the belief of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer cannot, merely on the basis of DVO's report, reopen the assessment

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the material, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon. There has to be something more than the report of DVO for the belief of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer cannot, merely on the basis of DVO's report, reopen the assessment

NARMADA CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 33/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Narmada Concast Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Private Limited Company

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

reopening present proceedings are incorrect.\n3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the\nCIT(A) has erred considering the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as valid\nwhen such proceedings are on account of mere change of opinion since all\nrelevant details were provided to AO during the course of original assessment

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)

REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND QUASHED. When the so called Order u/s 147 itself is illegal and void and bad in law, the same cannot be Revised u/s 263 of the Act. The facts are not disputed that the assessment was reopened

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment by making disallowance u/s. 43(5) r.w.s. 73 and sec.40A(2)(b) of Rs.13,89,08,810/- and excess disallowance u/s.14A of Rs. 1,04,652/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) and raised additional ground on reopening of assessment as follows:- 3 I.T.A No. 339/Ahd/2022

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

u/s. 147 of IT Act in J:hej;as_e. of. assessee company was limited upto the date of reassessment made u/s.147 of IT Act i.e. 11.08.2016 in the case of both the individuals. But the notice u/s.148 for reopening the assessment

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

u/s. 147 of IT Act in J:hej;as_e. of. assessee company was limited upto the date of reassessment made u/s.147 of IT Act i.e. 11.08.2016 in the case of both the individuals. But the notice u/s.148 for reopening the assessment

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 proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. The copy of the reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 ITA Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016