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)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263

HBC LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 328/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) िनधा"रण वष" Hbc Lifesciences Private Principal Commissioner बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Limited Of Income Tax-3 Vs. B-218, Mayur House, Ahmedabad G.I.D.C., Electronic Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch1407M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 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-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Pcit’) Dated 25.03.2023 In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short], For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30.10.2018 Declaring

263 of the Act dated 17.02.2023 that the business promotion expense claimed by the assessee was in the nature of freebies/monetary grant for promoting products and was required to be disallowed. Further that the AO had passed the assessment order without making proper enquiry and the required addition in respect of this claim. It is not apparent

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], for the assessment year 2020–21, whereby the PCIT held the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 23.09.2022 as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and directed

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

TDS in partial manner,\ntherefore, in view of clause (a) to Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act.\nAccordingly

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

TDS so deducted which was required to be withdrawn as you had not shown corresponding income in the A. Y. under consideration.” 3.2 Learned PCIT accordingly issued a notice under Section 263

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

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

TDS deduction, which was duly recognized by the AO during the framing of the assessment under section 143(3), it becomes evident that there is no justifiable ground for the ld.Principal CIT to invoke power under section 263

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

TDS deduction, which was duly recognized by the AO during the framing of the assessment under section 143(3), it becomes evident that there is no justifiable ground for the ld.Principal CIT to invoke power under section 263

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

Section 263 of the Act to the assessee company to explain why the assessment order should not be revised. During the hearing, the assessee submitted that the interest paid on late TDS

TULSI REALITY,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

TDS and not admissible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. 2.1. Subsequently, the PCIT invoked the powers under Section 263

JOGESHBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Jogeshbhai Ramanlal Patel The Pcit-3, C.A. Ashokkumar S. Gupta, C-411, Pratykash Kar 203/1, New Cloth Market, O/S. Bhavan, Ambawadi, Vs Raipur Gate, Raipur, Gujarat-380009 Ahmedagad-380002 [Pan No. : Aaxpp3232E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent By : Shri A. P. Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2022

Section 263 of the Act and therefore, requested to quash the Revision order passed by the Ld. PCIT. 10. Per contra, the Ld. CIT D.R. Mr. A. P. Singh appearing for the Revenue strongly contended that the assessee purchased the agricultural property vide document dated 19.09.2009 from Hasmukhbhai Javanmal and Ratilal Javanmal for a consideration

HESTER BIOSCIENCE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act amounting to ₹1,75,61,505/- and this included the interest amount of Rs. 98,791/-, which is in question. Regarding the deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee submitted that that the restriction under section Hester Biosciences Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst. Year –2020-21 - 3– 115BAA(2), which

HIMANSHU ENGINEERING WORKS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(7) PRESENT WARD- 3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS Rate] = Rs.2,92,38,879 - shown 48,54,918 = Rs.2,43,83,961) 7. Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. Rs.30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee received cash loan on advance and repaid the same during year by attracting provisions of Section 40A(3) on assumptions and Provisions u/s.269SS/269T

PARIMAL CHANDRAKANT ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

TDS certificate issued by Mr. Sanjeev Lodha are attached as "Annexure 9". 5.3. Thus the Ld. Counsel pleaded that it is nothing but change of opinion by the Ld. PCIT which is not permissible under section 263

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

Section 263 of the Act passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT should be quashed: i. CIT vs. Kamal Galani, [2018] 95 taxmann.com 262 (Gujarat) ii. CIT vs. Kamal Galani, [2019] 110 taxmann.com 213 (SC) iii. CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.) iv. ACIT vs. Jas Infra Space Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2130/Ahd/2017 & Ors. v. Mastek

SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR HIRALAL SHAH,VISANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: The Tribunal. This Appeal Is Filed On 01.06.2021 During The Covid-19, Corona Period. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 & In M.A. No. 29 Of 2022 Dated 10.01.2022 Extend By The Period Of Limitation From 15.03.2020 Till 28.02.2022. Thus, There Is No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal.

section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and requires to be revised u/s. 263 of the Act and requested the assessee to provide the following details: i) Copy of statements of all bank accounts held

JAYVANTKUMAR RAMANLAL CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

TDS. The assessee deposited complete proceeds into capital gains account with Bank of Baroda on 31.03.2018 and since the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the assessee’s claim was acceptable and deduction under Section 54 of the Act was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The PCIT observed that the assessee had furnished

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS was made by the Appellant u/s. 195 of the IT. Act. (c) Without prejudice and in the alternative, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing further deduction under Chapter VIA (out of total deduction determined earlier at Rs.152,38,78,465/-) from the income added by way of the aforesaid disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i), which formed part

SHRI SANDEEP JAGDISHCHANDRA DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. TEH PR. CIT -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 197 for NIL or lower rate of TDS) it is seen that the sum was neither produce before the Assessing Officer nor was the same produced before Ld. PCIT during the course of Sandip Jagdishchandra Dave vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– 263