THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

1) deals with a return required to be furnished under section 139 or section 148. That makes the provision clear that an assessment made under section 147 also will be a regular assessment under section 143 or section 144. Accordingly, we hold that any assessment made for the first time by resort to section 147 will also be a regular

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 which is further evidenced by amendment bythe Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 that inserted 4th proviso to section 153A read with explanation 1, the expression "relevant assessment year" that means an assessment year which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

reassessment proceedings were framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 13th December 2017 after making any addition of Rs. 39,05,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee. It is necessary to clarify at this juncture that there was a mismatch in the amount recorded in the reasons for reopening

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section 147 of the Act and further that

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section 147 of the Act and further that

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 149(1)(b) of the Act, which stipulates that the cases beyond 4 years cannot be reopened unless the income escaped assessment is Rs.1 Lakh or more. In the present case, the provision of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act was applicable and no quantification was required if the cases were reopened in respect of escapement