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

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

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

reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 which is further evidenced by amendment bythe Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 that inserted 4th proviso to section 153A read with explanation 1, the expression "relevant assessment year" that means an assessment year which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

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

u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts and submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment order passed under section

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

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

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

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

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

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

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

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

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

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial

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

Section 132(4) of the Act that he was settlor of the trust and that the beneficiaries of the trust were all his family members constituted incriminating material. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that in spite of being confronted with all the documentary evidences which clearly established that the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee, the assessee was in denial