DHARMENDRA RIKHAVCHAND SHAH, HUF,HIMATNAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT HURIS.THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

249(4)(b) of the Act without considering the fact that the appellant had filed original return of income. 2.1 In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating merits which is in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the statutory

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

u/s,148 of IT Act in the case of assessee company is not a legal and valid notice in view of the provisions of section 150(2) of IT Act and consequently the re-assessment completed on the basis of such invalid notice is also void abinitio. Having considered the facts and law the contention of the appellant is found

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

u/s,148 of IT Act in the case of assessee company is not a legal and valid notice in view of the provisions of section 150(2) of IT Act and consequently the re-assessment completed on the basis of such invalid notice is also void abinitio. Having considered the facts and law the contention of the appellant is found

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

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

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

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

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode