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

undisclosed income. 3 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts confirming validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings in absence of quantification of income escaping assessment in the reasons recorded by AO. 4 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing ground challenging validity of reasons recorded holding that dismissal of SCA challenging improper service

DANABHAI BHARVAD,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

undisclosed income with respect to credits in the aforesaid three bank accounts maintained by the assessee I.T.A No. 844/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. 4 Danabhai Bharvad v. ITO under the provisions of section 69 of the Act, vide reassessment order passed by the AO u/s 28.11.2017 u/s 144 read with Section 147

GHANSHYAMBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

undisclosed income, and overlooks the fact that the sources of deposit need not necessarily be income of assesse." The Honble ITAT quashed reassessment since reasons recorded as above were not sufficient for reopening. [III] PRAVEENKUMAR JAIN VS ITO ITA NO: 1331/DEL/2015 | Copy attached EXHIBIT-J page Sr. No: 88-97] in which at page 92 it is held that

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 :

Income Declared Rs. Nil Rs. Nil in Return Filed in Response to Notice u/s 148 Date of AO’s Order 30/12/2017 29/12/2017 Section Under Which 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Assessment Was Made Act Act Addition Made by AO Rs. 12.35 crore Rs. 1.80 crore u/s 69A Date of CIT(A) Order 07/09/2018

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 :

Income Declared Rs. Nil Rs. Nil in Return Filed in Response to Notice u/s 148 Date of AO’s Order 30/12/2017 29/12/2017 Section Under Which 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Assessment Was Made Act Act Addition Made by AO Rs. 12.35 crore Rs. 1.80 crore u/s 69A Date of CIT(A) Order 07/09/2018

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 :

Income Declared Rs. Nil Rs. Nil in Return Filed in Response to Notice u/s 148 Date of AO’s Order 30/12/2017 29/12/2017 Section Under Which 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Assessment Was Made Act Act Addition Made by AO Rs. 12.35 crore Rs. 1.80 crore u/s 69A Date of CIT(A) Order 07/09/2018

PARESHKUMAR PUNAMCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 29,93,000/- in the hands of the assessee towards undisclosed cash deposits, vide reassessment order dated 14.12.2018 u/s 144 read with section 147

LALITABEN DIPAKBHAI MODH,SURAT vs. PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

u/s. 143(2) dated 12-11-2021 against which the assessee given various details and evidences. The reply dated 15-12-2021 filed by the assessee is already extracted in Paragraph No. 3 of this order. 8.1. After considering the above replies filed by the assessee, the Ld. A.O. held that there is no specific amount of Rs.23

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

undisclosed income of Rs. 5,38,000/-. 2. 7. No information of assets located outside India is available. 3. 8. In this case return of income was filed for the year under consideration accordingly. In this case, no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above (refer

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

undisclosed income of Rs. 5,38,000/-. 2. 7. No information of assets located outside India is available. 3. 8. In this case return of income was filed for the year under consideration accordingly. In this case, no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above (refer

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

undisclosed income of Rs. 5,38,000/-. 2. 7. No information of assets located outside India is available. 3. 8. In this case return of income was filed for the year under consideration accordingly. In this case, no assessment was made and the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above (refer

GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment proceedings. There is no statement of Shri Rajesh Vaswani, Ashok Vaswani and Shri Deepak Vaswani recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act and u/s. 131 of the Act in respect of scanned copies of the seized loose paper pages reproduced by the AO in the assessment order. From perusal of the synopsis of arguments submitted by the appellant company

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH PLANTATIONS LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment proceedings. There is no statement of Shri Rajesh Vaswani, Ashok Vaswani and Shri Deepak Vaswani recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act and u/s. 131 of the Act in respect of scanned copies of the seized loose paper pages reproduced by the AO in the assessment order. From perusal of the synopsis of arguments submitted by the appellant company

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

147 of the Act is not at all applicable in the case of reopening on account of undisclosed foreign assets and, therefore, the assessee can’t derive any benefit from this decision. 33. In the case of Varshaben S. Patel (supra), the reason for reopening was based on material from an external source, which was not reflected in the reasons

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

147 of the Act is not at all applicable in the case of reopening on account of undisclosed foreign assets and, therefore, the assessee can’t derive any benefit from this decision. 33. In the case of Varshaben S. Patel (supra), the reason for reopening was based on material from an external source, which was not reflected in the reasons

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

147 of the Act is not at all applicable in the case of reopening on account of undisclosed foreign assets and, therefore, the assessee can’t derive any benefit from this decision. 33. In the case of Varshaben S. Patel (supra), the reason for reopening was based on material from an external source, which was not reflected in the reasons

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

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

147 of the Act is not at all applicable in the case of reopening on account of undisclosed foreign assets and, therefore, the assessee can’t derive any benefit from this decision. 33. In the case of Varshaben S. Patel (supra), the reason for reopening was based on material from an external source, which was not reflected in the reasons

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

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

147 of the Act is not at all applicable in the case of reopening on account of undisclosed foreign assets and, therefore, the assessee can’t derive any benefit from this decision. 33. In the case of Varshaben S. Patel (supra), the reason for reopening was based on material from an external source, which was not reflected in the reasons