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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18, arising out of the reassessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) in respect of the above assessment years. Since issue raised in all the appeals are identical, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. First, we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) in respect of the above assessment years. Since issue raised in all the appeals are identical, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. First, we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) in respect of the above assessment years. Since issue raised in all the appeals are identical, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. First, we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA ITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024 Arcoy Industries (India

DANABHAI BHARVAD,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

u/s 144 read with Section 147 . Sufficient reasons for non appearance/non compliance before the AO by the assessee during reassessment proceedings , are also demonstrated by the assessee. Now, I set aside the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. CIT(A) to make necessary preliminary enquiry as to the assessee’s claim to have filed additional

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063573997(1) and ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023-24/1063574322(1) for assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively , which in turn has arisen from the separate assessment order(s) firstly dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with Section 144B for assessment year 2018-19 & secondly dated

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063573997(1) and ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023-24/1063574322(1) for assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively , which in turn has arisen from the separate assessment order(s) firstly dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with Section 144B for assessment year 2018-19 & secondly dated

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present case were initiated on the assessee for the impugned assessment year on information I.T.A No. 2948/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Abdulvahed A.Sheikh

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

250 vide order dated 21/12/2023 passed for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 17-08-2018: I.T.A No. 292/Ahd/2024

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

u/s 153C of the Act. Thus, the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are not maintainable. 7. 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

M/S. BHAVI LEASING & FINANCE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Bhavi Leasing & Finance Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(1) 36/3, Sindhi Commercial Market Vs Baroda. Kalupur Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Aaacb 9407 F

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Ground No.1 to 7 raised by the assessee are legal grounds challenging validity of the assessment framed in the present case under section 147 of the Act on various grounds. These grounds read as under: ITA No.994 /Ahd/2017 “1. That