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

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

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

iii. Separate books of accounts were not maintained with respect to the eligible business as required under the provisions of section 80-IB(13) r.w.s. 80-IA(5) of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act by the assessee. The AO while making the disallowance

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

iii. Separate books of accounts were not maintained with respect to the eligible business as required under the provisions of section 80-IB(13) r.w.s. 80-IA(5) of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act by the assessee. The AO while making the disallowance

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

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

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

u/s. 148 of the Act after recording the reasons and taking approval from higher authorities, as required by the provisions of the Act in this regard. The appellant complied with the notice and stated that the original return filed may be considered as return filed in response to the said notice. The reasons recorded were provided to the appellant

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 14A of the Act, has been confirmed by my predecessor vide his appellate order dated 19/02/2009, The same is, therefore, upheld. The ground of appeal is accordingly partly allowed.” 11. After having heard both the parties and after appreciating the facts of the present case, we find that the initial order of assessment u/s.143

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, 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

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

14. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his original return of income on 3rd June 2011 declaring total income at Rs.7,25,405/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued on 8th January 2016. The learned Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s

ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. JASMIN JAYENDRABHAI THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

14. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his original return of income on 3rd June 2011 declaring total income at Rs.7,25,405/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued on 8th January 2016. The learned Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

2 of 153 reads as under "No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served" 4. Since the notice u/s 148 was served on the Appellant on 30th March 2012, the reassessment order u/s

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

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

14. To hold that the amendment to sub-section (1) would enable the authorities to reopen assessments, which had already attained finality due to bar of limitation prescribed under section 149 as applicable prior to 1-4-1989, would amount to give sub-section (1) a retrospective operation which is neither expressly nor impliedly intended by the amended sub-section

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

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

14. To hold that the amendment to sub-section (1) would enable the authorities to reopen assessments, which had already attained finality due to bar of limitation prescribed under section 149 as applicable prior to 1-4-1989, would amount to give sub-section (1) a retrospective operation which is neither expressly nor impliedly intended by the amended sub-section