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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

c) of the Act and\nissue a fresh penalty notice u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, thus\nmodified the reassessment order.\n7. Ld. Counsel Shri Jaimin Shah appearing for the assessee\nsubmitted that the penalty proceedings are independent and\ndistinct from the assessment proceedings and relied upon Delhi\nHigh Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

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

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

reassessment order:- “6. Assessed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961. Computation of income and demand notice u/s 156 of the Act is attached.” It is an admitted fact that the assessee never filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act, and the only return of income filed by the assessee

DARED SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Separate Appellate

reassessment order:- “6. Assessed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961. Computation of income and demand notice u/s 156 of the Act is attached.” It is an admitted fact that the assessee never filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act, and the only return of income filed by the assessee

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 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

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