DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 17.08.2018 while the assessee. Sh Anikumar Oochhavlal Desai had already expired on 10.09.2016. The AO has, in his order, relied on the provisions of section 159 of the Act to hold that the assessment proceedings were valid. 5.4 It is noted that Section 159 addresses the liability of legal representatives

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

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

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

KIRTI MILEX LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.686/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 M/S. Kirti Milex Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Nr.Lotus Flats, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

U/S 68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal

KAMLA CRAFT PACK PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.810/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Kamla Craft Pack Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, Nr. Lotus Flats, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-38001. Pan: Aaack7985K

U/S 68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page

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

159 ITD 329 (Amritsar) (B) Reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction: – The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the cases were reopened merely on the basis of the details received from the FT&TR Division of CBDT and there was no independent application of mind by the AO. He submitted that the reopening 25 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page