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

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

263 (revision of orders).\"\nThus, a new claim of deduction cannot be made by the assessee when notice u/s 153A is issued.\ng) Another question is "Whether returned/assessed income can be reduced u/s 153A/153C?\"\nThe object and purpose of section, 132 is to conduct search and thereby detect and unearth\nundisclosed income / asset/documents etc. and bring them to tax. Therefore

AIR WIND GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, 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 Income Tax Act is highly unjustifiable and unlawful. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, withdraw or amend any of the grounds of appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the hearing of this appeal so as to enable

MOHAMMEDSAQIB AIYUB PUTHAWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

revising the order u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Per contra, Ld. CIT-DR Shri Sher Singh supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the materials brought on record in the paper-book filed by the assessee. It is found that the only issue for which the case

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-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)

bogus accommodation entries operated and managed by entry operator Shri Naresh Jain. The information also suggests that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in manipulation of share price of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. amounting to Rs.40,95,442/- and assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.37,24,755/-. Therefore

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

bogus purchase bills through Shri Gurukamal Singh, proprietor of M/s Preet Enterprise, operating through multiple entities. It was alleged that the assessee had shown purchases from M/s Hamalloys Exim and M/s Bankey Bihari Industries, which were stated to be involved in issuance of accommodation bills without actual supply of goods. 7. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined

SHRI RAJENDRA J KESHWANI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT- CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.118/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Rajendra J. Keshwani The Pr.Cit बनाम/ (Huf) Central Circle V/S. 44, Asopalav Bungalows Ahmedabad Nr.Mukthidham Jain Temple Thaltej – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaehk 1973 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

bogus LTCG on Shri Rajendra J. Keshwani (HUF) Asst. Year : 2015-16 3 ground that the cost of purchase is not allowable u/s. 115BBE(2) of the Act. In other words, the learned CIT in the impugned order taken the view that entire sales consideration on sale of shares is required to be taxed u/s 68 of the Act instead

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

263 of the Act in respect of Value Added Tax (VAT) of Rs. 45,07,004/- involved in purchases of SS Scrap which your appellant had never claimed as expense. Ld. Pr. CIT also erred in not appreciating the fact that the ld. AO has dropped the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act after verifying the details and information

M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

263 of the Act in respect of Value Added Tax (VAT) of Rs. 45,07,004/- involved in purchases of SS Scrap which your appellant had never claimed as expense. Ld. Pr. CIT also erred in not appreciating the fact that the ld. AO has dropped the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act after verifying the details and information

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. 68/69A of the Act and such issue has not been properly adequately examined by the AO. Accordingly, Your Honors is of the view that the Assessment Order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence Your Honors has issued notice under section 263 of the Act seeking to revise the said

PRAMOD RAMAVATAR PODDAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of as directed above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.174/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pramod Ramavatar Poddar The Pr. Cit, Central Circle बनाम/ 203, Pinnacle Business Prk Ahmedabad – 380 009 V/S. Corporate Road Prahladnagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abrpp 6193 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr.Cit’] Dated 30/03/2021 Passed In Exercise Of His Revision Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015- 16. Pramod Ramavatar Poddar Vs. Pr.Cit Asst.Year: 2015-16

bogus and added u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment order, no deductions for purchase cost was allowable u/s 115BBE(2) of the Act. He further observed that, in this case, the purchase of shares was in physical mode and no proof of actual delivery of shares at the time of purchase has been furnished by the assessee during

VIVAA TRADECOM PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Shade No. 20, Shree Shhakti Income-Tax-4, Estate & Workhouse, Piplaj Ahmedabad Pirana Road, Saijpur-Gopalpur, Ahmedabad-302405 [Pan : Aaica 3968 J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क! तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal:

revision the case and should not check again on re- appreciating the materials on record. 4. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax have erred in law and on facts to direct AO to carry out thorough inquiries on the issues noticed during the course of assessment proceedings in pursuant to the order u/s 263

SMT. MANISHADEVI VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

bogus long term capital gain on the sale of shares namely GCM Securities Ltd. which is identified as a penny stock by Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata. Hence a show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee by ld. PCIT u/s 263 as to why not to modify or cancel the assessment order passed

JAYANTILAL PANACHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Jayantilal Panachand Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Topovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aqnps 2754 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

revision u/s 263 and thereby holding that LTCG on sale of shares of Looks Health Services Ltd. (short 'LHSL') of Rs.1,02,18,980/- was not genuine and the appellant was not entitled to exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act so that the AO should have made addition. 3.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred

M/S. BLUERAY TRADING PVT LTD.,MAHARASTRA vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 27.11.2017 passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The Ld. PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the order of the AO got merged with the order of the CIT(A) and he cannot exercise his revisionary

NEETU HURKAT,PALI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchase, closing stock and profits earned and also the\nminutes of the meetings for stock split. Thus, the Assessing Officer had made\ndue enquiries and after diligently examined what is required to be done and\nthen accepted the profits returned by the assessee.\n9.\nFurther, we find that the operative part of the Ld. PCIT's order u/s 263

JALPA UTTAPAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.720/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jalpa Uttapal Patel The Pr.Cit बनाम/ N Y Steel Corporation Ahmedabad-1 V/S. 6 Puja Apartment Ahmedabad – 380 015 Vrundavan Colony Opp. Sardar Patel Hospital Maninagar Ahmedabad – 380 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Baxpp 4020 K (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30 /09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Dated 26/03/2025 U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Contested The Very Exercise Of Revision Jurisdiction By The Ld. Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act. Jalpa Uttapal Patel Vs. Pcit Asst.Year : 2018-19 2

revision jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act, in this case, is held as bad in law. 4.2. Even otherwise, the assessee has also produced the assessment order of the Proprietor of M/s. Kapishwar Steel, i.e. Rohit Mital HUF, wherein, the names of parties are mentioned with whom they have carried out bogus purchase

M/S. HARSIDDH QUARRY WORKS,ARAVALLI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

revision order passed under s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. P.C.I.T erred in holding the Assessment Order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, as erroneous in so far prejudicial