ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, 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

160 taxmann.com 604 (Guwahati – Tribunal), the ITAT held that a partnership firm being a separate assessable “person” under the Income Tax Act, would not be entitled to same exemption under Section 10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations

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

160 taxmann.com 604 (Guwahati – Tribunal), the ITAT held that a partnership firm being a separate assessable “person” under the Income Tax Act, would not be entitled to same exemption under Section 10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations

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

160 taxmann.com 604 (Guwahati – Tribunal), the ITAT held that a partnership firm being a separate assessable “person” under the Income Tax Act, would not be entitled to same exemption under Section 10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations

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

160 taxmann.com 604 (Guwahati – Tribunal), the ITAT held that a partnership firm being a separate assessable “person” under the Income Tax Act, would not be entitled to same exemption under Section 10(26) of the Act as any or all of individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. I.T.A No. 1014, 1016 & 1018/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12 Page No 2 Patel Ambalal Laxmandas Ni Co. vs. ACIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. I.T.A No. 1014, 1016 & 1018/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12 Page No 2 Patel Ambalal Laxmandas Ni Co. vs. ACIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. I.T.A No. 1014, 1016 & 1018/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12 Page No 2 Patel Ambalal Laxmandas Ni Co. vs. ACIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that

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

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

147 are applicable to facts of this case\nand the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a\ncase where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In\nthis case more than four years have lapsed from the end of\n assessment year under consideration. Hence necessary sanction to\nissue notice u/s 148 is to be obtain separately from

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:

160 taxmann.com 166. 8.2. The DR also pointed out that before passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, a show-cause notice dated 27-03-2022 was also issued to the assessee in which it was specifically referred to the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee and was intimated about option to pass order u/s

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:

160 taxmann.com 166. 8.2. The DR also pointed out that before passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, a show-cause notice dated 27-03-2022 was also issued to the assessee in which it was specifically referred to the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee and was intimated about option to pass order u/s

AAHANA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Aahana Sales Private Limited Pr.Cit(Central) 3, Bhavya Enclave Vs. Ahmedabad. Vidhya Vihar Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aajca 1231 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

160% cess. 2.5 The PCIT, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to revise the assessment order. It was held that the assessee had not produced any credible evidences, either during assessment or during revisionary proceedings, to substantiate the impugned expenditure and that the Assessing Officer had failed to discharge his duty of enquiry. The Principal Commissioner further

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded that

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

160 ITR 920(SC) has held that there is a duty cast on the I.T.O. to determine the true figures of assessee's taxable income and the consequential tax effect. Here it is pertinent to mention that this order u/s 153C is merged with the earlier order u/s 143(3) of the Act, where also no such income was offered

PARTH DINESH PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.137/Ahd/2024 & 138/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Parth Dinesh Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 18/19, Utkarsh Society Ward-1, V/S. Opp. Market Yard Patan – 384 265 Tal. Visnagar, Mehsana Gujarat – 384 315 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwrpp 7811 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of Reassessment Orders Framed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer /Ao”] For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2015–16 & 2016–17, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common

u/s 148 reiterating the originally declared incomes. 3. During the course of reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015–16, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under section 68 of the Act aggregating to Rs.86,62,160/-, comprising Rs.32,50,000/- received from five specific parties connected with the entry operator and Rs.54,12,160/- from other lenders. The five parties through

PARTH DINESH PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

u/s 148 reiterating the originally declared incomes.\n3. During the course of reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015–16, the\nAssessing Officer (AO) made additions under section 68 of the Act\naggregating to Rs.86,62,160/-, comprising Rs.32,50,000/- received from five\nspecific parties connected with the entry operator and Rs.54,12,160/- from\nother lenders. The five parties through