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 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section 147 of the Act and further that

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.

234B of the Act, on the last assessed income. 5. That the appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter and delete any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 3. The assessee in ground No. 1 and 2 has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3)/254

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

U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

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

U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

ASSTT. 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

U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

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

U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

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

U/s. 234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

147 without considering and appreciating the erroneous contention of the A.O who has alternatively treated the credits in the bank accounts of Rs.5,67,70,140/- as unexplained cash credit U/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3). He has erred in law and facts in upholding the addition made by the A.O. without appreciating the fact that bank deposits by itself

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 45(2) r.w.s. 2(47) and thereby making addition of Rs. 9,40,27,625/- (8,97,16,439 + 43,11,186) without considering various facts & legal aspects. 3. That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in confirming the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 1,62,05,500/- U/s

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 263 as well as consequential orders passed subsequent to revision proceeding are Null and VOID and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same please be held accordingly. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

U/s 234B of Rs.1,40,33,568/-\naggregating Rs.2,49,97,293/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee.\n6). on the facts the assessee no additions ought to have been made.\n7). the appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any grounds\nof appeal.\"\nDuring the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative for\nthe assessee

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

U/s 234B of Rs.1,40,33,568/-\naggregating Rs.2,49,97,293/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee.\n6). on the facts the assessee no additions ought to have been made.\n7). the appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any grounds\nof appeal.\"\nDuring the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative for\nthe assessee

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

U/s 234B of Rs.1,40,33,568/-\naggregating Rs.2,49,97,293/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee.\n6). on the facts the assessee no additions ought to have been made.\n7). the appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any grounds\nof appeal.\"\nDuring the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative for\nthe assessee

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

U/s 234B of Rs.1,40,33,568/-\naggregating Rs.2,49,97,293/-without appreciating the facts of the assessee.\n6). on the facts the assessee no additions ought to have been made.\n7). the appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any grounds\nof appeal.\"\nDuring the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative for\nthe assessee

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

234B was mandatorily and consequential. It is submitted it be so held now. Your appellant prays for leave to add to alter and/or to amend any of the grounds before the final hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee in ground number 1 and 2 has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 read with section

SHRI RUSHABHDEV SWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

234B, 234C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee raised multiple legal and factual grounds, contending that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid and that the addition of Rs. 75,41,227/- made

BHAVNA SHETALKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the\nAssessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144 and section\n144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] for\nthe Assessment Year 2016-17.\nCondonation of Delay\n2.\nAt the outset, it is noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay\nof 170 days

SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer or AO"]. 2. Facts of the Case : 2.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income