THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 35. Hon’ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 35. Hon’ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 35. Hon’ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 35. Hon’ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 35. Hon’ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 35. Hon’ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search

SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search?" 35. Hon’ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: “16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search

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, 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

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

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

SMT. VANITA VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2010-11 Smt. Vanita Vaswani, The Pcit (Central), 2, Samprat Co-Op. Housing Vs Ahmedabad Society Limited, Opp. Rivera, 11, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad - 380015 Pan : Aakpv 7868 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar & Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad Dated 28.03.2021, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2010-2011. The Assessee Has Taken 7 Grounds Of Appeal Which Read As Under:- “1. The Ld. Pcit (Central), Ahmedabad ("The Pcit") Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Invoking Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") & Has Further Erred In Directing The Ld. Ao To Pass Fresh Assessment Order Incorporating The Market Value Of The Property As Per Section 50C Of The Act. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Case Of The Appellant In Failing To Take Smt. Vanita Vaswani Vs. Pr. Cit Ay : 2010-2011 2

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— Smt. Vanita Vaswani Vs. Pr. CIT AY : 2010-2011 8 (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, ~ belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, or any information contained therein

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

153C, thereafter proceed to assess or 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

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 147 of the Act. In the case of Jagjeet Singh 164 taxmann.com 324 (Amritsar - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee’s case was framed based on ledger account seized during search of another company which showed entries of unsecured loans, course of action was required to be taken under section 153C and not under section