THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

u/s 153C of the Act. Thus, the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are not maintainable. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the proceedings under section 153C of the Act can be initiated by the AO if, there was any document found during the search proceedings at the premises of the 3rd party pertaining/belonging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

147 r.ws 1448 of the Act Less: Rs 5,77,40,540/- already disallowed as per Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act) may kindly be deleted. 8 ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2025 & ITA Nos.1254 & 1249/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited – A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITEM NO.: III Non-granting of addition in closing stock

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

147 r.ws 1448 of the Act Less: Rs 5,77,40,540/- already disallowed as per Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act) may kindly be deleted. 8 ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2025 & ITA Nos.1254 & 1249/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited – A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITEM NO.: III Non-granting of addition in closing stock

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

147 r.ws 1448 of the Act Less: Rs 5,77,40,540/- already disallowed as per Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act) may kindly be deleted. 8 ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2025 & ITA Nos.1254 & 1249/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited – A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITEM NO.: III Non-granting of addition in closing stock

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

147 r.ws 1448 of the Act Less: Rs 5,77,40,540/- already disallowed as per Assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act) may kindly be deleted. 8 ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2025 & ITA Nos.1254 & 1249/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited – A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITEM NO.: III Non-granting of addition in closing stock

LALITABEN DIPAKBHAI MODH,SURAT vs. PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

147 r.w.s 144 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in setting aside the assessment with the direction to pass fresh assessment order after treating the entire

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

reassessment 90,37,67,440/ under due to failure - under Section of the section 68 as 147 read assessee to unexplained with provide credits due to Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

reassessment 90,37,67,440/ under due to failure - under Section of the section 68 as 147 read assessee to unexplained with provide credits due to Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years

INFINITY INTERNATIONAL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

147 of the Act is not justifiable on account of reasons discussed here-in-after and hence, the reassessment proceedings may kindly be dropped. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF: 3.1 The assessee was engaged in the activity of investment in shares, securities, movable and immovable properties and trading in merchandise goods. During the year under consideration, the assessee had taken certain

ASHOKSINH INDRASINH KUMPAVAT L/H OF LATE SHRI INDRASINH MANSINH KUMPAVAT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2011-12 Ashoksinh Indrasinh Kumpavat Ito, Ward-7(1)(3) L/H Of Late Shri Indrasinh Vs Ahmedabad. Mansinh Kumpavat A-55, Prathna Bungalow Opp: Ambedkar Hall Saraspur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aiapk 7634 C

147 of the Act as also on the merits of the case, which were all dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), in turn dismissing the assessee’s appeal. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has now come up in appeal before us, raising the following effective grounds of appeal: 1. The ld.CIT(A) erred

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

u/s 69C of the Act, without appreciating the facts of the case? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee engaged into transaction being bogus entries with Mahadev Trading Co., which was merely paper company and had no actual business

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." 10.1 As per sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the Act, if the Assessing Officer having regard

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." 10.1 As per sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the Act, if the Assessing Officer having regard

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

reassessment initiated under section 147 of the\nAct. After setting out the statutory framework governing reopening of\nassessments and analysing a series of judicial pronouncements, the learned\nCIT(A) recorded a categorical finding that the reopening was valid. It was\nheld that the information received from the GST anti-evasion wing\nregarding the assessee's transactions with Mahadev Trading

DHARMESSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-20 Dharmessh Shah The Ito, Ward-1 A-301, Vasantkunj Vs Patan. Garden Residency Sanjivan Road Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aelps 5203 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Kunal T. Sanghavi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prathvij Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

155 taxmann.com 279, wherein the Court held that if sales are not doubted, disallowance of entire purchases is unjustified. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment by relying upon Explanation 1(i) to Section 148, holding that flagged information under Risk Management Strategy constitutes valid "information" for reopening under the amended law w.e.f. 01.04.2021. On merits

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

155 ITD 1003 is apt in the present case. Thus, the Revenue has invoked incorrect provisions of the penalty and that cannot be said the fault of the assesse. Therefore, penalty does not sustain. Hence appeal of the assessee being ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed.” 33. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts