THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 4.1 Based on the above, the AO analyzed the bank statements for the period beginning from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015 of different persons whose names were appearing in such excel sheet. As per the AO, all the names of the persons appearing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREYASI DHARMEN SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

u/s 153C of the Act. Thus, the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are not maintainable. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the proceedings under section 153C of the Act can be initiated by the AO if, there was any document found during the search proceedings at the premises of the 3rd party pertaining/belonging

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

u/s 153C of the Act. Thus, the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are not maintainable. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the proceedings under section 153C of the Act can be initiated by the AO if, there was any document found during the search proceedings at the premises of the 3rd party pertaining/belonging

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRENA S SUTARIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 4 3.2 Based on the above, the AO analyzed the bank statements for the period beginning from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2015 of different persons whose names were appearing in such excel sheet

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

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\nallowed

147 as valid\nwhen 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\nITA Nos.424, 425, 426 and 427/Ahd/2024\nArcoy Industries (India) P. Ltd.\nAYs

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

unexplained cash credits. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case, submission of the appellant as well as the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant has rightly held in Para 9.9 on Page 75 of the Appellate order that "While under normal circumstances the AO should have been directed to restrict the disallowance u/s

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by observing as follows: “In the present case, although the appellant has argued that aforesaid unsecured loan was procured in the month of January 2013 and repaid in the month of March 2013 and provided copy of ledger account and ledger confirmation from the lender

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by observing as follows: “In the present case, although the appellant has argued that aforesaid unsecured loan was procured in the month of January 2013 and repaid in the month of March 2013 and provided copy of ledger account and ledger confirmation from the lender

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by observing as follows: “In the present case, although the appellant has argued that aforesaid unsecured loan was procured in the month of January 2013 and repaid in the month of March 2013 and provided copy of ledger account and ledger confirmation from the lender

BALKRISHNA TEXTILE (P) LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

unexplained cash credits. 12. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer without taking note of the fact that the assessee has already declared profit on the sales made resulting in double taxation of the same income. 13. The Appellant craves leave

BALKRISHNA TEXTILE (P). LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

unexplained cash credits. 12. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer without taking note of the fact that the assessee has already declared profit on the sales made resulting in double taxation of the same income. 13. The Appellant craves leave

BALKRISHNA TEXTILE (P) LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

unexplained cash credits. 12. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer without taking note of the fact that the assessee has already declared profit on the sales made resulting in double taxation of the same income. 13. The Appellant craves leave

ANISH RAJNIKANT SHAH,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings, which as per AO also remained un-complied with by the assessee. Hence, a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 30/10/2018 was issued by the AO to the assessee as to why cash deposit of Rs. 21,51,200/- shall not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. The assesee filed its return

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Credit Society Ltd. ("the Society") but also assailed the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. The challenge to reopening was raised through written submissions filed during appellate proceedings. 9. The learned CIT(A), after considering the reassessment orders, written submissions of the assessee, and judicial precedents, rejected the assessee’s challenge to the validity

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Credit Society Ltd. ("the Society") but also assailed the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. The challenge to reopening was raised through written submissions filed during appellate proceedings. 9. The learned CIT(A), after considering the reassessment orders, written submissions of the assessee, and judicial precedents, rejected the assessee’s challenge to the validity

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Credit Society Ltd. ("the Society") but also assailed the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. The challenge to reopening was raised through written submissions filed during appellate proceedings. 9. The learned CIT(A), after considering the reassessment orders, written submissions of the assessee, and judicial precedents, rejected the assessee’s challenge to the validity