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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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 ITR (St.) 1.\n7. 1. Further Ld. Counsel relied upon Chennai Tribunal decision in\nITA No.1451/Chny/2024 dated 14-08-2024 in the case of M/s.\nAnotra Realtors Pvt Ltd -Vs- PCIT, on identical wrong issuance of\npenalty notice, held that PCIT cannot direct AO to initiate penalty\nthrough revision proceedings, when the AO already applied his\nmind and initiated

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

C-104, Pushkar- 3, Opp. Vitrag Society, P.T. College Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad 2. Residence of Shri Shailesh A-22 67 to 75 Gandhi searched in the case of kush B shah, situated at 4, sahanand Bunglows, Nr. Shailby Hospital, Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad 3 612A Venus Atlantis, Near Hard Disk “Gitan old sheet” in Shell Petrol Pump, “VERAGE4”. Xls file and Anandnagar

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

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

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard