YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment proceedings. 4.3 In the absence of any explanation or documentary evidence, the AO proceeded to complete the assessments ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act, treating the cash deposits appearing in the information report as unexplained money under section 69A. The entire deposits were added to the total income, without allowing

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT.,(INTNL.TAXN.), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

reassessment proceeding within four year from the end of the assessment year. It is submitted it be so held now. 4. The CIT(A) erred in disallowing claim of deduction under section 42 of the Act. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant is entitled to deduction under section

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. DIT, (INTL. TAXN.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2003-04 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- 402, Heritage, Off. Ashram Road, Vs Tax (International Taxation), Usmanpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P Assessment Year : 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 701, Parshwanath E Square, Vs Tax (International Taxation-1), Prahladnagar Garden, Near Titanium Ahmedabad Building, Satellite, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacj 9592 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Shri Yogesh G. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar Dated 12.01.2010 & Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 29.05.2015 Passed For Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2006-07 Respectively.

reassessment proceeding within four year from the end of the assessment year. It is submitted it be so held now. 4. The CIT(A) erred in disallowing claim of deduction under section 42 of the Act. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant is entitled to deduction under section

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. DIT, (INTL. TAXN.),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2388-2389/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2004-2005 & 2006-07 Joshi Technologies International Inc., A.D.I.T(International Prahaladnagar Garden, Vs. Tax), 701 Parshwanath E Square, Ahmedabad. Near Titanium, Building Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacj9592P

reassessment on the ground that Assessing Officer has omitted to enquire on deduction u/s. 42 when in-fact the reopening is based on change of opinion which is not permissible under she Income tax law. It is submitted it be so held now. 3. The learned CI1(A) has erred in holding oil well as part of the building within

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREYASI DHARMEN SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

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

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The details of the assessment and appellate proceedings for both years

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The details of the assessment and appellate proceedings for both years

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The details of the assessment and appellate proceedings for both years

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]. The details of the assessment and appellate proceedings for both years

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

ANISH RAJNIKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

reassessment order on 07.12.2018 u/s 143(3) read with Section 147, although notice u/s 148 was issued by AO on 29.03.2018. The assessee could not give any explanation/evidences before the AO regarding the business carried on by the assessee, which led AO to invoke provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act and additions to the tune

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

200/- being legal professional charges disallowed for want of proof. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) where he challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act and also raised grounds on the merit of the addition/disallowance made. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the legal ground of the assessee, and further upheld

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

200/- being legal professional charges disallowed for want of proof. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) where he challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act and also raised grounds on the merit of the addition/disallowance made. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the legal ground of the assessee, and further upheld

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

200/- and offered Short Term Capita! Gain amounting to Rs.42,51,445/- on the same. Further, it is noticed from copy of sale deed that stamp duty of Rs.6,55,900/- was levied thereon. As stamp duty in Gujarat is levied @4.9%, the value of property as per its details comes to Rs.1,33,85,714/-. Further

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

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

147 on 02/03/2023. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating the reply to notice issued on 08/03/2023 explaining that penalty proceedings are independent from assessment proceedings and as per various legal decisions assessment cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue in as much as that the non initiation of penalty