WAVES TRADELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "148A(b)", "148A(d)", "149(1)", "151", "68" ], "issues": "Whether the notices for reassessment proceedings

NA ROTO MACHINE & MOULDS INDIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

148A(d) and surviving time:- notice under section 148:- 6387/2023 09.06.2022 04.06.2022 29.07.2022 22.06.2022 5688/2023 06.06.2022 - 27.07.2022 27.06.2022 22260/2022 07.06.2022 06.07.2022 30.07.2022 14.06.2022 996/2023 11.06.2022 10.06.2022 19.07.2022 18.06.2022 68

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

148A(d) on 30.07.2022 holding it to be a fit case for reassessment. 3.2 In response to notice issued under section 148 on the same date, the assessee filed return of income on 12.01.2023 declaring income of Rs. 940/- as originally declared. Notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued subsequently. Though partial compliance was made

VIKAS CHANDRAKANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(b) is not only vague but also for making fishing inquiry which is not permissible and the same is issued without supplying any information in possession of Ld. AO. Grounds on Merits 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the Assessment Order passed u/s 147 rws 144B of the Income

HEMANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL,NADIAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

148A(d), holding that income amounting to Rs. 1,92,00,000/- had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Therefore, it was deemed a fit case for the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Gujarat High Court held that it was evident from the explanation provided by the petitioner that all the investments

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AMBALIA HITESH CHHAGANLAL HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

68 of the Act and taxed under ITA Nos. 1428 & 1429/Ahd /2024 ITO Vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF Asst. Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 2– section 115BBE of the Act. The assessment was completed on 29.05.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AMBALIA HITESH CHHAGANLAL HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

68 of the Act and taxed under ITA Nos. 1428 & 1429/Ahd /2024 ITO Vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF Asst. Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 - 2– section 115BBE of the Act. The assessment was completed on 29.05.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee

SAVLI TALUKA SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EMPLOYEES CO OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Savli Taluka Secondary & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Higher Secondary Employees Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vadodara – 390 007 18, Rayakaka Park Savli Desar Road Vadodara – 391 770. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafas 6647 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

148A(b) of the Act were issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer ("JAO") and not the faceless assessing officer ("FAO"). Addition of Rs.96,82,541/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs.96,82,541/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The learned

PARESH NAGJIBHAI VAHANKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

RAMJIBHAI GHILABHAI VAGHASIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PRCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

MANSUKHLAL MANEKLAL GOYANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

PRAVINBHAI JIVRAJBHAI SA vs. ANI,AHMEDABADVS.THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

MANOJBHAI PADALIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

KALPESHBHAI SAVANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

VISHNUBHAI VALJIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

BIPINBHAI MORADIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

SURESH VALLABHBHAI KAPADIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the assessment years before us

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

148A(d) of the Act in various cases of labour contractors and various reassessment orders passed in other cases of labour contractors wherein similar transactions are accepted. On the other hand, it is found that in one of the labour contractor's case being Mahendra Shantilal Mathukiya, Assessing Officer had made addition under Section 68

DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. SHREE NAKODA TEXFAB PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

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

148A(d) and notice under notice under section 148 as section 148:- per surviving time: 6387/2023 09.06.2022 04.06,2022 29.07.2022 22.06.2022 5688/2023 06.06.2022 - 27.07,2022 27.06.2022 22260/2022 07.06.2022 06.07.2022 30.07.2022 14.06.2022 996/2023 11.06.2022 10.06.2022 19.07.2022 18.06.2022 68