ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

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

u/s,148 of IT Act in the case of assessee company is not a legal and valid notice in view of the provisions of section 150(2) of IT Act and consequently the re-assessment completed on the basis of such invalid notice is also void abinitio. Having considered the facts and law the contention of the appellant is found

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

u/s,148 of IT Act in the case of assessee company is not a legal and valid notice in view of the provisions of section 150(2) of IT Act and consequently the re-assessment completed on the basis of such invalid notice is also void abinitio. Having considered the facts and law the contention of the appellant is found

THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI VIGHNAHARTA REALITY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in pursuance thereof was not in accordance with law and consequently ought to be held as void ab-initio 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly appreciating the written submission of the appellant company and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant

ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in pursuance thereof was not in accordance with law and consequently ought to be held as void ab-initio 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly appreciating the written submission of the appellant company and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant

SHIVGANGA PROPERTY HOLDERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in pursuance thereof was not in accordance with law and consequently ought to be held as void ab-initio 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly appreciating the written submission of the appellant company and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search\nconducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to\nappellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s\n148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as\nproceedings have been initiated based upon documents

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended

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 43 of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of non-resident person. As per the original provision, reassessment notice could not be issued after expiry of one year from the end of assessment year. This provision was amended with effect from 1st April 1956 and the time period for issue of notice was extended