BALARAM CONSTRUCTION LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Balaram Construction Ltd. The Pcit 309, 3Rd Floor, Shital-9 Vs Ahmedabad-1 Opp. Bihari Bagh, Palanpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Banaskantha – 385 001 (Gujarat) (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacb 6264 C

revision is not made by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 4 You are requested to furnish your objection/ comments online through e-filing portal or at the email address ahmedabad pcit1@incometax.gov.in on or before 07.03.2023. If you wish to attend the hearing personally, you may do so on 07.03.2023 at 11.30 A.M. along with your submissions

VEER PLASTICS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

revised in relation to following items: Deduction u/s 80IC (Points 2-7): " "Other income" of Rs.26,24,805/- needs to be considered as income not derived from manufacturing activities for the purposes ofS.80IC. Consequently, excess deduction of Rs.7,87,401/- u/s 80IC has been allowed by Assessing Officer. " Since assessee has multiple productions units at various places, there is every

SHAMA AJAY PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

revised u/s 263 of the Act on account of the same being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the Assessing Officer having failed to making necessary inquiries with respect to the information available with him regarding the alleged bogus capital gain earned by the assessee on trading in the scrip of M/s. Kushal Limited. Due reply

THE SANKHEDA JETPUR PAVI TALUKA GINNING PRESSING COTTON SALE CO.OP SOCIETY LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

revising the assessment invoking powers u/s. 263 of the Act. 6. The learned PCIT erred in feet and in law in not dealing with the alternate claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(e)of the Act. 7. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in not appreciating the fact that the income from ginning and pressing activities is negative

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

u/s 56(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. v) The original booking letter dated 07.07.2010 was not available to the assessee and therefore, the assessee requested the builder/organizer i.e. Aqua Infrastructures for issuing copy of letter and it issued the duplicate copy of booking letter in new format which included the clause of TDS @ 1%. This was nothing

M/S. ROQUETTE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

TDS returns filed. Thus the assessee had demonstrated that the claim of the assessee to these expenses was in accordance with law, none being disallowable on account of non deduction of tax at source as apprehended by the Ld.PCIT. We have also noted that the assessee had been subjected to tax audit u/s 44AB

ARVIND FASHIONS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Revision order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD.,,VALLABH VIDHYANAGAR vs. PR. CIT-2,, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals field by the Assessee are allowed

revised by the Ld. PCIT by issuing a show cause notice u/s. 263 dated 09.03.2018 as follows: Sir, Sub: show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Income-Tax Act in the case of Elecon Engineering Company Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 I.T.A No. 1402 & 1403/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 3 Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. and Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT Please

ELECON EPC CO. LTD.,(MERGED WITH ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD),VALLABH VIDHYANAGAR vs. PR. CIT-2,, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals field by the Assessee are allowed

revised by the Ld. PCIT by issuing a show cause notice u/s. 263 dated 09.03.2018 as follows: Sir, Sub: show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Income-Tax Act in the case of Elecon Engineering Company Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 I.T.A No. 1402 & 1403/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 3 Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. and Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT Please

PANKAJ MADHUSUDAN TRIVEDI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

263 passed by Ld. PCIT is illegal and bad in law in absence of any finding of Ld. PCIT how the alleged error of AO has resulted in loss of revenue particularly when TDS, as contemplated in the scheme of the Act, has been correctly effected by the appellant. The Ld. PCIT has blindly and without application of mind made

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

revised return of income u/s. 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 04.03.2007 declaring total income at nil. A search operation u/s. 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the Bodal Group cases by issuing warrant of authorization u/s. 132(1) of the Act on 09.02.2012 and various documents/books of accounts/other valuable articles/other

M R PATEL AND SONS,SOUTH TOWER,AMBLI BOPAL ROAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN (VEJALPUR),NR SACHIN TOWER,ANANDNAGAR PRAHLADNAGAR ROAD,AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, maybe initiated if deemed fit." 7.1. In view of the specific remarks, of the FAO inasmuch as submission was not visible, and a specific remark that the assessee has claimed loading and supervision charges of Rs.1,24,16,000/- Dishman Group, but, he has not verified the transactions.” 8.1. This makes it clear that

TEXRAJ REALTY PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16

revision u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has made following submissions:- a) During the previous year 2014-15, the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.10 crores as land vacant compensation charges and in support of this claim, the assessee had filed during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, a copy of notarized agreement

DEEPAK M. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak M. Patel The Pr.Cit-I Shreekunj Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Shaswat Bungalows Suryala Nr. Lakshya Pre School Rajpath Club Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380059. Pan : Abbpp 3027 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025

revision u/s 263 and thereby held that deduction of interest expenses u/s 57(iii) allowed by AO was without verification and ought not to have allowed it. 3.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in holding that the provision of Explanation-2 to sec.263 was attracted in the facts of the case. 3.2 That

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

revision order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the PCIT under section 263, are such that for the Assessment Year 2018–19, it was found from the Insight Portal and ITBA system that the assessee had not filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, despite having undertaken substantial high-value transactions during the relevant financial year. Based

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

revision order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the PCIT under section 263, are such that for the Assessment Year 2018–19, it was found from the Insight Portal and ITBA system that the assessee had not filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, despite having undertaken substantial high-value transactions during the relevant financial year. Based

KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

revising the assessment under Section 263. As a result, the Principal Commissioner exercised the powers conferred under Section 263, setting aside the AO's Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 4– order dated April 22, 2021. The AO was directed to re-evaluate the claim regarding the interest on late payment of TDS amounting

NAVIN KALIDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 109/Ahd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Navin Kalidas Patel The Pr.Cit-3 802, Block –A, Status Ahmedabad Vs. Appartment, Opp. T. V. Tower, Drive-In-Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpp0215B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3, (In Short ‘The Pr. Cit’) Dated 29.03.2021 In Exercise Of His Revisionary Power Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 Was Filed By The Assessee On 25.01.2016 Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,03,730/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.396/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 191, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Narol–Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 6019 P (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

TDS on foreign commission. The gross total income was computed at Rs.12,04,36,098/-, against which the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.12,04,36,098/- under section 80IA of the Act, resulting in NIL taxable income. 2.1. Subsequently, the PCIT invoked the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, holding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial