DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

reassessment proceedings and grants primacy to section 153C. As noted earlier, exercise of power under section 153C is governed without any stringent fetters of holding 'reason to believe' contemplated under section 147. Therefore, while exercise of overriding power under section 153C will render section 147 otiose, the converse case of clipping the powers available under section 147 in search cases

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

reassessment proceedings and grants primacy to section 153C. As noted earlier, exercise of power under section 153C is governed without any stringent fetters of holding 'reason to believe' contemplated under section 147. Therefore, while exercise of overriding power under section 153C will render section 147 otiose, the converse case of clipping the powers available under section 147 in search cases

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

reassessment proceedings and grants primacy to section 153C. As noted earlier, exercise of power under section 153C is governed without any stringent fetters of holding 'reason to believe' contemplated under section 147. Therefore, while exercise of overriding power under section 153C will render section 147 otiose, the converse case of clipping the powers available under section 147 in search cases

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 and 69A on facts and in law. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening under section 147 for all assessment years. He recorded that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 and 69A on facts and in law. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening under section 147 for all assessment years. He recorded that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act, treating it as unexplained cash credit, on the grounds that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of these credits with supporting documentary evidence. In response, the assessee objected to both the reassessment

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act, treating it as unexplained cash credit, on the grounds that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of these credits with supporting documentary evidence. In response, the assessee objected to both the reassessment

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act, treating it as unexplained cash credit, on the grounds that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of these credits with supporting documentary evidence. In response, the assessee objected to both the reassessment

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act, treating it as unexplained cash credit, on the grounds that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of these credits with supporting documentary evidence. In response, the assessee objected to both the reassessment

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act, treating it as unexplained cash credit, on the grounds that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of these credits with supporting documentary evidence. In response, the assessee objected to both the reassessment

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. EL DORADO BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 68 of the Act. 26. The Principles of Natural Justice requires that the Department which seeks to rely on the statement of a witness (Shri Partik R. Shah)has to allow the adverse party (the assessee) an opportunity of cross-examination of such witness. Admittedly, the opportunity for the cross examination of Shri Partik R. Shah was not provided

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CAPAXO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1264/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.190/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 I.T.O., M/S. Capaxo Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 302, Third Floor, Ahmedabad. 3Rd Eye, C.G.Cross Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

section 68 will not be applicable on this transaction. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 14.3 In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to the CO. No. 190/AHD/2019, raised by the assessee 15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of objection: All the grounds in this Cross Objections are mutually exclusive

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-III (“CIT(A)”) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in confirming the additions u/s 68 of the Act towards share capital made by the Learned Assessing

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-III (“CIT(A)”) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in confirming the additions u/s 68 of the Act towards share capital made by the Learned Assessing

RICH PAINTS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 186/Ahd/2015 1995-96 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 2. 187/Ahd/2015 1996-97 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H 3. 188/Ahd/2015 1997-98 M/S. Rich Paints Ltd. Ito-4(2), C/O Smt. Bhartiben M. Shah, Baroda 60 Sundaram Nagar, Near Jakat Naka, Vasna Road, Vadodara (Guj.)-390007 Pan No. Aaacr8988H

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-III (“CIT(A)”) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in confirming the additions u/s 68 of the Act towards share capital made by the Learned Assessing

THE DCIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SIDDHI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly kept open.\n10. All Revenue appeals fail on merits and are dismissed

68 and 69A on facts and in law. The CIT(A)\nupheld the validity of reopening under section 147 for all assessment years.\nHe recorded that the Assessing Officer had initiated reassessment

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act and the assessment was completed on that basis. 4. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the Gitaben Dineshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– addition on merits. The primary ground raised was that the reassessment notice under section

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

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, it is pertinent to record that the assessee had not furnished any source-wise bifurcation or supporting documentary evidence in respect of the deposits made in the account maintained with Shri Renukamata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. during the reassessment