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

5) of section 23 was inserted by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01-04-2018. Therefore, such a provision is not applicable for the year under consideration. 15. The assessee further submitted that advance booking was received against unsold units. Accordingly, it has no right to let such unit on rent to other person. Hence no notional income from house

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

reassessment order:- “6. Assessed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961. Computation of income and demand notice u/s 156 of the Act is attached.” It is an admitted fact that the assessee never filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act, and the only return of income filed by the assessee

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

reassessment order:- “6. Assessed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961. Computation of income and demand notice u/s 156 of the Act is attached.” It is an admitted fact that the assessee never filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act, and the only return of income filed by the assessee

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

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. (b) The AO erred to notice that the legislators in their wisdom clearly spelt

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

u/s. 143(2) dated 08-09-1998 was served upon the appellant vide which the date of hearing was fixed on 16-09-1998 and the Authorised Representative of the assessee had attended the hearing on 16-09-1998. Thus, there is no substance in the second ground of appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ITA nos.1022 to 1025/AHD/2018

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.

u/s 148 of the Act and passed reassessment order within framework of the Act and such notice is a valid notice. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us contended that the notice under

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.

u/s 148 of the Act and passed reassessment order within framework of the Act and such notice is a valid notice. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us contended that the notice under

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

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

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

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

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

139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed 42,57,100/- 53,70,731/- 67,95,307/- 95,65,305/- 72,43,244/- income (Rs.) Addition

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

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

139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed 42,57,100/- 53,70,731/- 67,95,307/- 95,65,305/- 72,43,244/- income (Rs.) Addition

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

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

139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed 42,57,100/- 53,70,731/- 67,95,307/- 95,65,305/- 72,43,244/- income (Rs.) Addition

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

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

139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed 42,57,100/- 53,70,731/- 67,95,307/- 95,65,305/- 72,43,244/- income (Rs.) Addition

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

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

139(1) Returned 1,87,900/- 2,42,400/- 2,66,740/- 2,87,420/- 3,25,000/- total income (Rs.) Date of 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 30.03.2021 notice u/s 16.03.2022 09.03.2022 10.03.2022 20.03.2022 11.03.2022 assessment order Assessed 42,57,100/- 53,70,731/- 67,95,307/- 95,65,305/- 72,43,244/- income (Rs.) Addition

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

5, Ahmedabad, ITA No.\n1502/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) dated 14.02.2017, has correctly held that the\nloose papers found during the course of search and relied upon by the AO for\nmaking the addition in appellant's case are dumb documents and the Ld.\nCIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.1

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 147 of the Act. (KAVITA P. KAUSHIK) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad.” 17. A perusal of the above reasons would indicate that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had made deposits in cash aggregating to Rs.1.63 crores. This cash deposit, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 147 of the Act. (KAVITA P. KAUSHIK) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad.” 17. A perusal of the above reasons would indicate that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had made deposits in cash aggregating to Rs.1.63 crores. This cash deposit, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that," . Therefore, as per the word used in section 153C(1) of the Act, once the AO has relied upon the seized material loose paper pages found and seized in the search case of Venus group, the notice issued u/s