Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. PCIT

412 ITR 277High Court2019#2832 most cited

What is Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. PCIT authority for?

An assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 merely because the Commissioner holds a different belief or view, especially when the Assessing Officer has made full inquiry and taken a plausible view not unsustainable in law.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. PCIT · section 263 · revision of assessment · erroneous and prejudicial · AO's full inquiry · plausible view of AO · Commissioner's different view · Malabar Industrial · Gujarat High Court 2019 · 412 ITR 277

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 155BBESection 69CSection 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 80(p)section 80(p)(2)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 80p(1)section 2(1)section 194a(3)(v)section 194a(3)section 145(2)section 263(1)malabar industrialsection 254(1)section 80p(2)(d)

Judgments citing Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. PCIT

MOHMEDAMIN MOHMEDUMAR GENERAL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…e of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Green World Corporation, 181 Taxmann 11 (SC) and decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.), Aryan Arcades Ltd. vs. PCIT, 412 ITR 277 (Guj.) and other decisions and submitted that when the AO had taken a plausible view of the issue, it could not be subjected to the action u/s 263 of the Act. 3.2 The ld. PCIT did not accept the reply of the assessee. He has referred to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and reply of the assessee at para 6.1 and 6.2 respectively. He observed that t…

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 540/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…wer of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; and (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests of the revenue. 19. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., v. PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. In CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd (309 ITR 67 Gujarat)/ 182 Taxman 183 Gujarat, the Hon'bl…

ALTAF AYOOBBHAI VEHVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 27/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…issioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 21.The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it is further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (2007) 207 CTR 462 (Madras)…

JABIR AYOOB VAHEVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 26/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…issioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 21.The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it is further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (2007) 207 CTR 462 (Madras)…

RAMJHARUKHA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT 20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2627/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Ramjharukha Co-Op Housing Society Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Vs Tax -20, Mumbai. 1, S V Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400058. [Pan No. Aaaar1629M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…e appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010- 11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 5 Ramjharukha Co-Op Housing Society Limited 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

BHARATKUMAR RANCHODBHAI SONI,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

ITA 505/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…Once the AO has taken a view with which the Id. PCIT does not agree, it cannot be said that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. For this, the Id. AR relied on the decision in case of Aryan Arcade Ltd. vs. PCIT, 412 ITR 277 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd., 309 ITR 67 (Guj.). The Id. AR also relied on the decisions in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supa) and Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra). He also relied on the decision of ITAT, Surat in case of K. N. Diamond vs. PCIT, in ITA No. 104/SRT/2022, where the Tribunal held that if the AO has taken a vie…

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 507/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.507/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…lar disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., v. PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd., (20…

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY, SURAT,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 506/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…lar disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., v. PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd., (20…

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO. OP HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 478/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…lar disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., v. PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd., (20…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), SURAT vs. PANDESARA GREEN ENVIRONMENT WATER WELFARE COOP. SOCIETY LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 246/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), SURAT vs. PANDESARA GREEN ENVIRONMENT WATER WELFARE COOP. SOCIETY LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), SURAT vs. PANDESARA GREEN ENVIRONMENT WATER WELFARE COOP. SOCIETY LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 244/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

ITA 195/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.193 to 195/SRT/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8th Floor & 9th Floor, II, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman and Diu (UT) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (UT) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जी…

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

ITA 194/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.193 to 195/SRT/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8th Floor & 9th Floor, II, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman and Diu (UT) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (UT) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जी…

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

ITA 193/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.193 to 195/SRT/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8th Floor & 9th Floor, II, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman and Diu (UT) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (UT) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जी…

SHREE MADHI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Pr.C.I.T.-1 Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Room No. 123, 1St Floor, Vs. P.O. Box No. 5, At & Post- Madhi, Aayakar Bhavan, Tal: Bardoli, Surat-394340. Majuragate, Surat. Pan: Aaaas 4732 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…ar disallowances /issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (20…

THE GOVERNMENT E CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) The Government E Co- Principal Commissioner Of Operative Society Ltd./, Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vs First Floor, Government Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, Sevasadan, Bhag-2, B/H Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Pwd Office, Bharuch- Circle, Vadodara-390007 392001 Pan No. Aaalt 0832 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…wer of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; and (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests of the revenue. 19. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., Vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. In CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd (309 ITR 67 Gujarat)/ 182 Taxman 183 Gujarat*, the Hon’b…

BALUBHAI BRIJBHUKHANDAS CHOKSI,NA vs. ARIVS.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-Valsad, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Choksi, Mota Bazar, Vs. Navsari-396445 Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifb 9804 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 199CSection 263

…officer has ITA No.119/SRT/2022 A.Y.17-18 Balubhai B. Choksi made addition of 10% of such deposits to tax the profitability as if such transaction was a result of inflated sales. 19. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., Vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. In CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court also held that when asse…

NAVAPURA URBAN CO-OP CREDIT & CONSUMER SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Navapura Urban Co-Op Credit & A.C.I.T., Consumer Society Ltd., Circle 1(2), Vs. 9/572, Siddhi, Kotsafil Main Road, Surat. Surat-395002 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aaaan 0539 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3