CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

2) of the Act was not issued upon him. Accordingly, the assessee claimed that the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 01-11-2017 is not sustainable and thus liable to be quashed. However the learned CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under: 2.3, / have

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

2) of the Act was not issued upon him. Accordingly, the assessee claimed that the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 01-11-2017 is not sustainable and thus liable to be quashed. However the learned CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under: 2.3, / have

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

11 20.2 Thus, respectfully following the order of this Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as discussed above, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal of Revenue hereby dismissed. 20.3 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to ITA No. 37/Ahd/2021 by the Revenue

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

11 20.2 Thus, respectfully following the order of this Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as discussed above, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence the ground of appeal of Revenue hereby dismissed. 20.3 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to ITA No. 37/Ahd/2021 by the Revenue

KIRTI MILEX LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.686/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 M/S. Kirti Milex Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Nr.Lotus Flats, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

U/S 68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal

KAMLA CRAFT PACK PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.810/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Kamla Craft Pack Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, Nr. Lotus Flats, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-38001. Pan: Aaack7985K

U/S 68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

11) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;" "159. Legal representatives. - (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. (2) For the purpose

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

11 (1) Weather the reason to believe for re-opening assessment under section 147 of the Act must be of the assessing officer who derived such satisfaction after application of his mind. As such, the AO is not empowered to re-open assessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act based on borrowed satisfaction and merely on the basis some

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

11 Abdulvahed A.Sheikh vs. ITO would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. (2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

147 of 2016; Tribune Trust (supra) wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: …………The Tribunal by the impugned order held that the stand of the authorities was unsustainable as even assuming that all the allegations of the Assessing Officer with respect to the profit motive in the activities of the assessee are correct, the same were carried

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

147. Ground no. 2 is allowed in the terms indicated above. 148. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance: 3. The C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in withdrawing exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.30,53,888/- received in the form of Corpus donation in form of Infrastructure Subsidy. 149. Learned representatives

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

2. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not deleting an addition of Rs.40,69,200/- u/s.69A and therefore the Ld. AO is to be directed to delete the said addition made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

2. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not deleting an addition of Rs.40,69,200/- u/s.69A and therefore the Ld. AO is to be directed to delete the said addition made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

2. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not deleting an addition of Rs.40,69,200/- u/s.69A and therefore the Ld. AO is to be directed to delete the said addition made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

2. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not deleting an addition of Rs.40,69,200/- u/s.69A and therefore the Ld. AO is to be directed to delete the said addition made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

2. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by not deleting an addition of Rs.40,69,200/- u/s.69A and therefore the Ld. AO is to be directed to delete the said addition made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend

SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in pursuance thereof was not in accordance with law and consequently ought to be held as void ab-initio 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly appreciating the written submission of the appellant company and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant

ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in pursuance thereof was not in accordance with law and consequently ought to be held as void ab-initio 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly appreciating the written submission of the appellant company and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant

THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI VIGHNAHARTA REALITY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in pursuance thereof was not in accordance with law and consequently ought to be held as void ab-initio 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly appreciating the written submission of the appellant company and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant