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

133(6) of the Act and made disallowances of claim of the assessee. In this regard we find that the learned CIT(A) has given flawless finding that after resolution of dispute of jurisdiction over issuance of BU permission, the AMC has issued such permission for remaining units to the assessee and certified that the project was completed before

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

6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present case were initiated on the assessee for the impugned assessment year on information I.T.A No. 2948/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Abdulvahed A.Sheikh vs. ITO received

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)

147 /151 of the case in para 8-10 of his reason for reopening assessment under section 148. 6. It may also be noted that the ground Challenging issuance of notice under section 148 was also taken by the assesee before CIT (Appeals) which was dealt in detail by the learned appellate authority. 7 Reliance was placed on 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)

147 /151 of the case in para 8-10 of his reason for reopening assessment under section 148. 6. It may also be noted that the ground Challenging issuance of notice under section 148 was also taken by the assesee before CIT (Appeals) which was dealt in detail by the learned appellate authority. 7 Reliance was placed on the decision

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)

147 /151 of the case in para 8-10 of his reason for reopening assessment under section 148. 6. It may also be noted that the ground Challenging issuance of notice under section 148 was also taken by the assesee before CIT (Appeals) which was dealt in detail by the learned appellate authority. 7 Reliance was placed on the decision

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)

147 /151 of the case in para 8-10 of his reason for reopening assessment under section 148. 6. It may also be noted that the ground Challenging issuance of notice under section 148 was also taken by the assesee before CIT (Appeals) which was dealt in detail by the learned appellate authority. 7 Reliance was placed on the decision

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

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

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

6. Thereafter, assessee filed its reply by stating that first ground of appeal challenges the legality of the 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 & 273/Ahd/2017 [Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd.] A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2010-11 - 4 - of the Act dated 18.03.2011 were enclosed

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

6. Thereafter, assessee filed its reply by stating that first ground of appeal challenges the legality of the 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 & 273/Ahd/2017 [Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd.] A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2010-11 - 4 - of the Act dated 18.03.2011 were enclosed

DANABHAI BHARVAD,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

Section 147. The notice of demand u/s 156 was issued by the AO , calling upon assessee to deposit Rs. 15,57,920/- . The assessee did not deposit the said demand in pursuance of notice of demand issued by the AO u/s 156. The ld. CIT(A) observed that even at the time of filing of the appeal before

RAJASTHAN JAIN MITRA PARISHAD,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, JURISDICTIONAL AO: THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

133(6). Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee to file return of income for the impugned assessment year, which was also not complied with by the assessee. Statutory notices u/s. 142(1) were issued from time to time by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. Neither the return was filed nor any compliance

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

133(6) to establish the same. 1. On the perusal of the information available to this office, the following transaction has been made by the Arpan Virambhai Desai for A.Y. 2017-18. Sr. Entity DA Amount Net Cash Cash paid Total Cash Final No. Deposit for Property Transactions Reopening Purchase Amount

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

133(6) to establish the same. 1. On the perusal of the information available to this office, the following transaction has been made by the Arpan Virambhai Desai for A.Y. 2017-18. Sr. Entity DA Amount Net Cash Cash paid Total Cash Final No. Deposit for Property Transactions Reopening Purchase Amount

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

133(6) to establish the same. 1. On the perusal of the information available to this office, the following transaction has been made by the Arpan Virambhai Desai for A.Y. 2017-18. Sr. Entity DA Amount Net Cash Cash paid Total Cash Final No. Deposit for Property Transactions Reopening Purchase Amount

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

section 144B of the Income-tax Act was passed on 30/03/2022 by accepting returned income. The case was re-opened on the below mentioned reason: "The case was re-opened on the basis of information reflected on Insight Portal along with Report of Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department in a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

6 that the assessee had engaged in transactions aimed at introducing unaccounted income in the garb of loans and sales, and accordingly, additions were made under section 69A for both years, and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 8. The assessee preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, challenging the reassessment orders passed under section 147

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

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

6 that the assessee had engaged in transactions aimed at introducing unaccounted income in the garb of loans and sales, and accordingly, additions were made under section 69A for both years, and penalty proceedings were separately initiated. 8. The assessee preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, challenging the reassessment orders passed under section 147