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 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

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent for initiation of reassessment proceedings and various applicable timelines and requirements have not been complied with. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts

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

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

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

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

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