AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 147 of the Act which is a condition precedent for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, the CIT(A) ought to held the reassessment order as bad in law and void-ab-initio. 2. The ld. CIT(A) grievously erred in not considering the fact that the AO has not disposed off the elaborate objections disputing the validity

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 147 of the Act which is a condition precedent for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, the CIT(A) ought to held the reassessment order as bad in law and void-ab-initio. 2. The ld. CIT(A) grievously erred in not considering the fact that the AO has not disposed off the elaborate objections disputing the validity

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

reassessment proceedings. Copy of the same was provided to the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 28/07/2016 by the A.O. The assessee firm vide letter dated 17.08.2016 submitted to the A.O. that they have no objection for the re-assessment proceedings. Subsequently, the A.O. issued notice u/s. 143(2) 142(1) requiring the assessee firm to furnish various details

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

reassessment proceedings. Copy of the same was provided to the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 28/07/2016 by the A.O. The assessee firm vide letter dated 17.08.2016 submitted to the A.O. that they have no objection for the re-assessment proceedings. Subsequently, the A.O. issued notice u/s. 143(2) 142(1) requiring the assessee firm to furnish various details

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

reassessment proceedings. Copy of the same was provided to the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 28/07/2016 by the A.O. The assessee firm vide letter dated 17.08.2016 submitted to the A.O. that they have no objection for the re-assessment proceedings. Subsequently, the A.O. issued notice u/s. 143(2) 142(1) requiring the assessee firm to furnish various details

THE ITO, WARD 8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

u/s. 143(2) of the Act is to be issued after filing of return of income. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of cross objection. 4. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, the appellant company requests to admit the above additional legal ground of appeal which is legal in nature, in view

VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,. WARD-8(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

u/s. 143(2) of the Act is to be issued after filing of return of income. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of cross objection. 4. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, the appellant company requests to admit the above additional legal ground of appeal which is legal in nature, in view

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PRSSB SRVICES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1030/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.168/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 I.T.O, M/S. Prssb Services Ltd., Ward-3(1)(4), Vs. Sakar-1, 5Th Floor, Ahmedabad. East Wing, Opp. Gandhigra, Railway Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaacp9125H

reassessment is contrary to the facts. The notice u/s 148 and order u/s 147 be quashed. 2.1 The CIT (A) ought to have held that the notice of demand dated 13th December, 2013 and demand of Rs. 11,47,675/- are erroneous. The notice of demand be quashed and in consequence thereof demand of Rs. 11,47,675/- be also

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

u/s 44AD by creditors does not lead to conclusion about genuineness of the transactions. The audited accounts of the appellant have also not been rejected by AO. 5.7 The issue can also be looked at from another angle. While the fact regarding revenue being declared from the work carried out through the engagement of sub- contractors is a strong factor

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

u/s 44AD by creditors does not lead to conclusion about genuineness of the transactions. The audited accounts of the appellant have also not been rejected by AO. 5.7 The issue can also be looked at from another angle. While the fact regarding revenue being declared from the work carried out through the engagement of sub- contractors is a strong factor

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

u/s 44AD by creditors does not lead to conclusion about genuineness of the transactions. The audited accounts of the appellant have also not been rejected by AO. 5.7 The issue can also be looked at from another angle. While the fact regarding revenue being declared from the work carried out through the engagement of sub- contractors is a strong factor

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

u/s 44AD by creditors does not lead to conclusion about genuineness of the transactions. The audited accounts of the appellant have also not been rejected by AO. 5.7 The issue can also be looked at from another angle. While the fact regarding revenue being declared from the work carried out through the engagement of sub- contractors is a strong factor

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

u/s 44AD by creditors does not lead to conclusion about genuineness of the transactions. The audited accounts of the appellant have also not been rejected by AO. 5.7 The issue can also be looked at from another angle. While the fact regarding revenue being declared from the work carried out through the engagement of sub- contractors is a strong factor

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

274 r.w.s.271(1)(b) for non-compliance, and further issued a final\nshow cause notice dated 02.12.2019, fixing hearing on 05.12.2019, asking\nthe assessee to explain:\n- The source of investment of Rs.92,62,433/- in the immovable\nproperty;\n- The source and nature of credits aggregating to Rs.91,71,722/- in\nbank account no. 1698010000724 held with Bank

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

147 r.w.s.1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (\"Act\") for\nAY 2017-18 has become erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act and hence, it is a\nfit case for revision u/s.263 of the Act.”\n3. 1. The assessee made detailed reply about the wrong notice\nissued

NASIMBANU MIRZA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(8)- CURRENTLY THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 376/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Nasimbanu Mirza Ito B/67, Mayurpark Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Opp. Bibi Talab, Vatva, Daskroi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382440 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bfkpm6262E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Foziya Saiyed, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 25/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2025

274 read with section 271(1)(c) or any other section and interest under section 234A,234B, 234C, 234D or any other section should be deleted. 4). The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 4.1 The assessee has also raised an additional ground as under: 5). On the facts