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

SHANTABEN PARASMAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

u/s 148 of the Act 1. The basis of addition in the assessment order and the reasons for the reassessment are different. In the reasons for the reassessment, allegation is for the Bogus Sale of Rs.92,56,189/- whereas the claim under section 10(38) of Rs. 87,57,789/-has been rejected and in view of the following judgments

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

u/s 69C of the\nAct, without appreciating the facts of the case?\n2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee engaged into\ntransaction being bogus entries with Mahadev Trading Co., which was merely\npaper company and had no actual business?\nITA

SHRI TYRONE PATRICK LEMOS,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2414/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

u/s 148 of the Act.” 6.1 Making reference to the reasons recorded (supra) by AO under s.148(2) of the Act to invoke jurisdiction under s.147 of the Act, the learned AR submitted that it is self-evident that what operated in the mind of the AO for alleged escapement of income is that the assessee has purchased immovable property

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(E) erred in fact and in law in invoking revision power u/s 263 of the Act on an issue of allowability of exemption u/s 11 of the Act despite the fact that proceeding u/s 263 cannot be initiated on debatable issue. Gujarat Technological University vs. CIT(E) Asst. Year

M R PATEL AND SONS,SOUTH TOWER,AMBLI BOPAL ROAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN (VEJALPUR),NR SACHIN TOWER,ANANDNAGAR PRAHLADNAGAR ROAD,AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 29/03/2022 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment, by passing the Order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26/02/2024. 2. Your appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend the grounds of appeal if occasion

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 147 of the Act." 4.2 Further, reliance is also placed on the following judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court of Gujarat which have been delivered on similar set of facts:- (i) Kaushaliya Shampatlal Dudani - 129 taxmann.com 48 {2021} (Guj) (ii) Vilas Vrajlal Parekh HUF - 129 taxmann.com 68 (2021) (Guj) (iii) Bhanuben Mansukhlal Khimasthria - 119 taxmann.com

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 147 of the Act." 4.2 Further, reliance is also placed on the following judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court of Gujarat which have been delivered on similar set of facts:- (i) Kaushaliya Shampatlal Dudani - 129 taxmann.com 48 {2021} (Guj) (ii) Vilas Vrajlal Parekh HUF - 129 taxmann.com 68 (2021) (Guj) (iii) Bhanuben Mansukhlal Khimasthria - 119 taxmann.com

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 147 of the Act." 4.2 Further, reliance is also placed on the following judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court of Gujarat which have been delivered on similar set of facts:- (i) Kaushaliya Shampatlal Dudani - 129 taxmann.com 48 {2021} (Guj) (ii) Vilas Vrajlal Parekh HUF - 129 taxmann.com 68 (2021) (Guj) (iii) Bhanuben Mansukhlal Khimasthria - 119 taxmann.com

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 147 of the Act." 4.2 Further, reliance is also placed on the following judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court of Gujarat which have been delivered on similar set of facts:- (i) Kaushaliya Shampatlal Dudani - 129 taxmann.com 48 {2021} (Guj) (ii) Vilas Vrajlal Parekh HUF - 129 taxmann.com 68 (2021) (Guj) (iii) Bhanuben Mansukhlal Khimasthria - 119 taxmann.com

PARESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pareshbhai Rameshbhai Panchal, Income Tax Officer, 1017, Nariyawad Ni Pole, Vs Ward-1(2)(5), Lunsawad, Dariapur, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380001 Pan : Atepp 2563 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Shah, Ar & Shri Aman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.11.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.8,65,200/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee From The Transactions In Shares.

u/s 144 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the assessee could not' submit the above documents at the time of assessment which resulted into ex-party assessment and has created lot of hardship without his fault and circumstances beyond his control. We request you to admit the copy of the ledger account of the assessee from the books

THE HARSIDDHI CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MAHISAGAR vs. THE ITO,, LUNAWAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1862/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Harsiddhi Co-Op. Credit Ito, Lunawada. Society Ltd., Tower Road Vs At & O : Santrampur 389 260 Dist: Mahisagar, Gujarat Pan : Aabat 3395 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri T.C.Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/03/2019

172 (Guj). Contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is that assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee has made deposits in cash in bank account, whereas no addition qua that issue has been made. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court after putting reliance upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways

BHANSALI FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, the set off brought forward of losses was modified. In other words the order was passed precisely on the same issue on which the assessment was reopened. Hence, this contention of the appellant is factually incorrect and is devoid of merit.” 5. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before

NITABEN GIRISHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

147 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs.13,78,078/ - made by Ld. AO under section 69A of the Act. 4. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary

BHANSALI FISCAL SERVICES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, the set off brought forward of losses was denied. In other words the order was passed precisely on the same issue on which the assessment was reopened. Hence, this contention of the appellant is factually incorrect and is devoid of merit.” 5. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before

PRAVIN AMBALAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3138/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-12

u/s 147 of the IT. Act was as under :- "Shri Pravinbhai Ambalal Patel having PAN No. AGEPP13Q1P, The assessee has sold out property bearing Survey No. 202 at Village Sughad (Dist, Gandhinagar), vide sale deed registered on 30,06.2009 i.e. in FY. 2009-10 relevant to A, Y. 2010-11 and received Ms, 36,04,795/- as a co-seller

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. MRUNAL SANTRAMDAS VERMA,, AHMEDABAD

172 (Gujarat), wherein the High Court held that when the ground on which reopening of assessment was based, no addition was made by Assessing Officer, he could not make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of reasons recorded by him. The counsel for the assessee submitted that no additions were made in respect of those issues

JT. CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. N.K. PROTEINS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 489/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

reassessment. It was thus submitted that the issue is beyond the ITA No. 489/Ahd/18 [Jt.CIT(OSD) vs. M/s. N. K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - pale of controversy anymore. The learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court CIT v. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2014) 355 ITR 172 (Guj) which according

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years