DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

273/- only during the F.Y. 2008-09 to 2014-15 . The breakup of the cash deposits in bank account of ‘Sutaria Family/Group’ for the financial year 2008-09 to 2014-15 is recorded on pages 74 to 76 of the PB. 4.2 Out of such deposits of cash, a sum of ₹ 95,58,227/- in cash was deposited

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

u/s. 143(3) of the Act and therefore the return of income of the aforesaid two parties as well as bank statements and books of accounts of the aforesaid parties were already on the record of the With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 3 AO, the Ld. AO has correctly deleted the addition made by the AO under section

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

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. WEB GAZER SOFTWARE COMPANY,, VADODARA

273. 11.1 Moving further we note that the ld. AR of the assessee has referred to order of this tribunal in case of Quality BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 120/Ahd/2012 and contended that the assessee case is covered by this order wherein it was held that the letter of approval received from STPL is a proper approval

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

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

147 on 02/03/2023. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating the reply to notice issued on 08/03/2023 explaining that penalty proceedings are independent from assessment proceedings and as per various legal decisions assessment cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue in as much as that the non initiation of penalty

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

reassessment order.\n7. Ld. Counsel Shri Jaimin Shah appearing for the assessee\nsubmitted that the penalty proceedings are independent and\ndistinct from the assessment proceedings and relied upon Delhi\nHigh Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa reported in\n[1982] 133 ITR 7 wherein it was held that failure to initiate or\nwrongful initiation

NRUPAL NARESHCHANDRA RAJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 147 of the Act, the A.O. accepted the income declared in the return of income with the following remarks: "With the details available on record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and Nrupal Nareshchandra Raja vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 3– keeping in view the fast approaching time-barring date, the assessment proceedings in this case

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act, the assessee would not have reported the escaped amount and then, the said amount would have escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A Parulben Vijakumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– of the Act for misreporting of income and levied penalty @ 200% of the tax payable on such under reported

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.’ 2. New Rule 8D : 2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.’ 2. New Rule 8D : 2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.’ 2. New Rule 8D : 2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent before

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent before

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent before

SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP ( LTD. LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

273 sq yard]. In the page no 58, total area of land and bungalows sold by Shri Ashwin B Dudhat and his brothers and the on-money component of sale consideration has been shown 893 sq yards and Rs.66,521/-per sq yard. 3.4 After analysing seized materials, Revenue appointed Special Audit u/s.142(2A) of the Act and obtained Special

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. DUSHYANT U PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

273 Motibhai R. Prajapati 91050 350288 Bhagvanbhai R. Prajapati 91050 350288 Kantibhai R. Prajapati 91050 350288 Total 273150 1050864 1050864 B. No. 276 Motibhai R. Prajapati 531150 2043440 Bhagwanbhai R. Prajapati 531150 2043440 Kantibhai R. Prajapati 531150 2043440 Sachin M. Prajapa 531150 2043440 Kalpesh B. Prajapati 531150 2043440 Yatin K. Prajapali 531150 2043705 Total

M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADD.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed in the 1st 13. year then