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

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

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

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

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

282 ITR 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

INFINITY INTERNATIONAL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

147 of the Act is not justifiable on account of reasons discussed here-in-after and hence, the reassessment proceedings may kindly be dropped. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF: 3.1 The assessee was engaged in the activity of investment in shares, securities, movable and immovable properties and trading in merchandise goods. During the year under consideration, the assessee had taken certain

DILIPKUMAR BABABHAI ZAVERI,PATAN, GUJARAT vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

282—\n(i) the address available in the PAN database of the addressee; or\n(ii) the address available in the income-tax return to which the\ncommunication relates; or\n(iii) the address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the\naddressee; or\n(iv) in the case of addressee being a company, address of registered\noffice

ROHIT PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

282 (Guj.). The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot record only some of the reasons and keep back the others to be disclosed before the Court if the action is challenged in court of law, for which reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Kantibhai D. Narola, 436 ITR 302 (Guj.). He further submitted

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein two additions were made by the AO, firstly with respect to the investment made by the assessee during the impugned assessment year on 24.09.2009 with NHAI of Rs. 10,00,000/- , and secondly income of Rs. 3,95,595/- from M/s Landmark Education Breakthrough Technologies Private Limited which was not 11 I.T.A

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 45 & Ita No.204/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Rohitji Chanduji Thakore Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(1) Chandanami Nivas Vs Ahmedabad. Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Ahmedabad. Pan : Adtpt 4435 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv Parimal Singh B. Parmar, Ar Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

282 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit, which was sworn by the assessee. The contents of the affidavit read as under: “a) The impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was received by me on 30.08.2019. I was to hand over the same to the concerned Tax Practitioner

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing