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?

u/s. 148 to be issued to the legal representatives/ heirs of the assessee and not against the deceased. The Hon’ble High Court further went on to hold that the provisions of Section 292 BB of the Act, providing that where assessee appears in any proceeding and cooperates in any enquiry relating to an assessment or re-assessment, it shall

HIRENKUMAR LAVJIBHAI KANANI,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated for the limited scrutiny purpose of verifying the applicability of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which deals with "Deemed Dividend". The Assessing Officer (AO), after considering the submissions and explanations provided by the assessee, made an addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the income of the assessee, treating

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act observed as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima-facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening

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

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

292 (Guj). He also emphasized that the AO has not made reference to any seized material for making addition in the hands of the assessee. This is not relevant assessment year where he can look into all this aspects. This is an assessment year which unabated as per the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, and therefore

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act and issued several notices of hearing to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in absence of any information / explanation by the assessee with respect to total deposits amounting to Rs. 28.70 crores in his bank account held with Renukamata Society, the Assessing Officer

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

147 of the Act and issued several notices of hearing to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in absence of any information / explanation by the assessee with respect to total deposits amounting to Rs. 28.70 crores in his bank account held with Renukamata Society, the Assessing Officer