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

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

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

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

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

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

234B & C of the Act. 6. That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Shri Navinchandra N Patel Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged

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

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 cannot be treated as unexplained income either U/s 69A or U/s 68 of the Act. 4). He has also erred in law and facts in upholding the application of provision of section 115BBE

NEXUS SOFTWARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 4(1),, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3 to section 147 without properly appreciating the ratios of decisions mentioned in Para 4.6 and 4.7 of his order and confirming the reassessment order following the earlier assessment dated 30/12/2010. 8. He has erred in holding that the case of the assessee is not covered by the third proviso to section 147. 9. On the facts no interest u/s

THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B & 234Cof the IT Act. (5) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, omit or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal before the Appeal is finally heard and decided.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that at the time of filing of return of income on 23rd September 2011, the assessee had calculated

GOPAL MATHURDAS PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both these appeals are also partly allowed

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 I.T.A Nos. 406 to 408/Ahd/2025 A.Ys.. 2013-14 to 2015-16 2 Gopal Mathurdas Parikh. vs. ITO respectively. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same

GOPAL MATHURDAS PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both these appeals are also partly allowed

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 I.T.A Nos. 406 to 408/Ahd/2025 A.Ys.. 2013-14 to 2015-16 2 Gopal Mathurdas Parikh. vs. ITO respectively. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same

GOPAL MATHURDAS PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both these appeals are also partly allowed

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 I.T.A Nos. 406 to 408/Ahd/2025 A.Ys.. 2013-14 to 2015-16 2 Gopal Mathurdas Parikh. vs. ITO respectively. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same

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

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

u/s 145(3) due to failure to\nconclusively prove supplier identity, but reasonable estimation\nshould follow. Applying an industry-consistent GP rate of 5% and\n6% was considered fair in light of past performance, industry\nmargin trends, and judicial tolerance. The relevant paras from\nthe order of CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2018-19 are reproduced as under:\n6.1 This

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

3) r.w.s.147 without considering and appreciating the fact that the\nassessment order passed by A.O. resorting to re-assessment proceedings was\nsubmitted to be bad in law and on facts in as much as that the conditions\nenvisaged U/s 147 have not been fulfilled and there is no valid assumption of\njurisdiction as per law.\n3). He has erred