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

FORTUNE BARODA NETWORK PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS on the payments made by it.” 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. counsel by referring the section 153(2A) of the act contended that order u/s. 263

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

STHAPTHYA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 814/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Sthapathya Buildcon Pvt Ltd., D.C.I.T, Pavan Petroleum, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nutun Mill Compund, Ahmedabad. Near City Gold Cinema, Saraspur, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aalcs8818G

263 of the Act after placing the reliance on the Asstt. Year 2013-14 8 judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Namdari Seeds reported in 203 taxman 421. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the Ld. PCIT

DILIP HIRALAL MEHTA, HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1454/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Dilip Hiralal Mehta-Huf Vs. Ito,Ward-5(2)(2) Prop. Of Ispat Incorporate Ahmedabad. B-208, Nirman Complex Opp: Havmor Restaurant Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaehm 4045 F

263 of the Act, which ultimately touches the merit of the matter. We therefore think it proper to deal with the merit on the issue as raised before us by the assessee. 3. First ground on merit relates to disallowance of Rs.4,73,852/- under section 40A(2) of the Act. 4. The brief facts leading to the case

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

ASENCE PHARMA PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1000/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Asence Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Sarabhai Campus, Ward-1(1), Vs. Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Marg, Baroda. Wadi, Baroda-390 023. Pan: Aafca3471M

TDS under section 195 of the Act in the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 which has reached to the finality. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT 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

SYNTHESIS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

TDS on labour expenses etc. as well as the reasons for nonpayment of such expenses for such long time which ITA No. 550/Ahd/19 [Synthesis Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 8 - cast aspersions on bonafides. It was finally submitted that the Pr.CIT has not merely evoked the provisions of Section 263

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

SHRI NANDKISHORE S. SODHAN(HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 994/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Nandkishore S. Shodhan Ito, Ward-5(2)(3) (Huf) Vs Ahmedabad. D/11-12, Silver Arc Kavi Nanalal Marg Ellisbridge Pan : Aadhs 4064 F

section 263 was issued upon the assessee for the following reasons: “It can be seen from the records that during the year under consideration, the Assessee had received interest of Rs.2,65,247/- from Dutta Developers Pvt. Ltd. on which IDS of Rs.26,525/- had also been deducted and credited in the Govt. account. However, in the return of income