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)

section 147/151(1) of the Act in para 9- 11 of his reason for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the grounds challenging issuance of notice u/s. 148 was also taken before the ld. CIT(A) which was dealt in detail by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision

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)

section 147/151(1) of the Act in para 9- 11 of his reason for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the grounds challenging issuance of notice u/s. 148 was also taken before the ld. CIT(A) which was dealt in detail by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision

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

147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) any proceeding which could have been taken against the deceased if he had survived, may be taken against the legal representative. Therefore, in the light of the provisions

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment'. The term 'escaped assessment' includes both 'non- assessment' as well as 'under assessment'. Income is said to have 'escaped assessment' within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee in the relevant year

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., 'escaped assessment'. The term 'escaped assessment' includes both 'non- assessment' as well as 'under assessment'. Income is said to have 'escaped assessment' within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee in the relevant year

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?

129 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka) held that section 159(2)(b) would require a separate notice to be issued under section 148 within time prescribed under section 149(1)(b) as against legal representatives directly and if such proceedings are initiated beyond time prescribed under section 149(1)(b), such proceedings would not be valid. Further, notice issued against a dead

PARESHKUMAR PUNAMCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

129 of the L.T. Act dated 25/07/2018 issued and served upon you. You have neither replied nor submitted any details in response to this notice. This office has issued notice u/s 133 for calling information to MCX, BSE, Indusind Bank and Vijaya Bank on 29/08/2018. This office has received the information. In this regard this office has issued notice U/s

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

reassessment proceedings which is duly sanctioned as per law by the higher authority is legal and valid. The ground No. l challenging the reopening is therefore rejected.” 12. Before us, the counsel for the assessee primarily reiterated the submissions on this aspect made before Ld. CIT(Appeals). The primary contention of the assessee is that the assessment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

reassessment proceedings which is duly sanctioned as per law by the higher authority is legal and valid. The ground No. l challenging the reopening is therefore rejected.” 12. Before us, the counsel for the assessee primarily reiterated the submissions on this aspect made before Ld. CIT(Appeals). The primary contention of the assessee is that the assessment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

reassessment proceedings which is duly sanctioned as per law by the higher authority is legal and valid. The ground No. l challenging the reopening is therefore rejected.” 12. Before us, the counsel for the assessee primarily reiterated the submissions on this aspect made before Ld. CIT(Appeals). The primary contention of the assessee is that the assessment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

reassessment proceedings which is duly sanctioned as per law by the higher authority is legal and valid. The ground No. l challenging the reopening is therefore rejected.” 12. Before us, the counsel for the assessee primarily reiterated the submissions on this aspect made before Ld. CIT(Appeals). The primary contention of the assessee is that the assessment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

reassessment proceedings which is duly sanctioned as per law by the higher authority is legal and valid. The ground No. l challenging the reopening is therefore rejected.” 12. Before us, the counsel for the assessee primarily reiterated the submissions on this aspect made before Ld. CIT(Appeals). The primary contention of the assessee is that the assessment

ROHIT PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

129 (Raj.)). Rohit Prakashchandra Shah vs. ITO Page 5 of 22 Submission of the Revenue 6. Per contra, Shri Abhijit, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the information in the present case was uploaded on the Insight Portal of the Department which was available to the Assessing Officer, on the basis of which he had recorded his reasons. He submitted that

PRAKASH AMARLAL DOULATANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 970/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Prakash Amarlal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward -3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Doulatani Vs. 16/318, Satyagrah Chhavni, Near Bhavnirjar, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaspd3727B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vihar Soni, A.R. Assessee By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 30/01/2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/01/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Arising Out Of The Order Dated 22.11.2018 Passed By The Ito, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Whereby & Wherunder The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of ‘On Money’ Has Been Confirmed.

129 of the Income-tax Act. You are requested to comply to this notice online through e-filing portal.” 6. Immediately, thereafter the assessee filed the return which was already filed by him under Section 139(1) of the Act alongwith the computation of income of the assessee and the details of payment made by the assessee to the Iscon

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down