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

37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and 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

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

u/s 148. The Hon’ble Bombay high Courts in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways reported in 331 ITR 236 have held that: Interpreting the provision as it stands without adding or deducting from the words used by the Parliament, it is clear that upon formation of a reason to believe under Section 147 and following the issuance

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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