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

1) of IT Act in the appellate orders in the cases of aforesaid both individuals, the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of IT Act was initiated in the case of assessee. However, it has been argued by the appellant that because of the application of section 150(2) of IT Act the aforesaid time limit for issue of notice u/s. 147

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

1) would have overriding effect over the provision contained in Sections 139, 147, 148,149,151 and 153 and if Assessing Officer is said to be justified in proceeding with section 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

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. The notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO. The assessee filed its return of income in pursuance to notice issued by the AO u/s 148. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) during reassessment

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. The notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO. The assessee filed its return of income in pursuance to notice issued by the AO u/s 148. The AO issued notices u/s 142(1) during reassessment

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

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. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement