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

Section 263 of the Act. It was a case in which the Assessing Officer had doubted the genuineness of the purchases shown by the assessee. The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine and in any case if such purchases are not believed to be genuine, the profit from such dealing should be calculated at the rate

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. Despite this, the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and passed an order on 22-03-2021, holding that the entire sale consideration (and not just LTCG) should have been taxed under Section 68 of the Act, and no deduction for purchase

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

bogus and deny exemption under section 10(38) - Held, yes [Paras 6.3, 6.5 and 6.11] [In favour of assessee]…” 8.2. Whereas in the present case, a show-cause notice was issued by the Ld.PCIT on 27.03.2023 and on the request made by the assessee, the relevant portion of the statement of Shri Champak N Prajapati was provided to the assessee

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

purchases in question were not bogus, then, in our view additions proposed to be made under Section 147 of the Act and 263

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

purchases in question were not bogus, then, in our view additions proposed to be made under Section 147 of the Act and 263

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

purchase\nexpenses.\n67. ISSUE NO.4 REGARDING TREATMENT OF ALLEGED BOGUS\nSUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 69A AND 69C OF\nTHE ACT AND CHARGING THE SAME AT THE RATE SPECIFIED\nIN TERMS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT.\n68. The next issue being taken for consideration is the\ntreatment of the alleged bogus sub-contract expenses as deemed\nincome

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

263 of the Act may be dropped. The ld. PCIT after considering the submission of the assessee observed that the assessee has not submitted demat account during the course of assessment proceedings to prove the transactions. It was observed by ld. PCIT that KDJHRL is a recognized penny stock(scrip ID 530701) engaged in providing bogus long term capital gain/loss

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly re-examined the entire issue in accordance with the directions of the ITAT and hence the contention

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

JIGNABEN PRASHANTBHAI PATEL,SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD, PRATYAKSHKAR BAWAN, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

bogus long term capital gain from penny stock name Parikh Herbals Ltd. which has resulted into under assessment of Rs. 41,06,175/- as per the observation made by the Pr. CIT. Therefore Pr. CIT issued notice dated 21- 11-2023 thereby invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee responded the same and after taking cognizance

NRUPAL NARESHCHANDRA RAJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

263 of the Act has to be understood as legal and judicious opinion and not arbitrary opinion.The law interpreted by the Hon'ble courts makes it clear that Ld. PCIT before holding Nrupal Nareshchandra Raja vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 7– the order of the Ld. A.O as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue should

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the\nAct, proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that the order dated\n16.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as it was\nprejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT set aside\nthe said assessment order.\n5.\nBeing aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee

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

purchase consideration shown by the assessee vis- a-vis Jantri value of the property under the stamp valuation. As such, there was no issue about the source of investment in the impugned property before the AO in the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, therefore the Ld. PCIT cannot extend the A.Y. 2014-15 3 scope of assessment u/s 263

JAI TRIPATI STEELS PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Jai Tripati Steels P.Ltd. Vs. The Ld.Pr.Cit-1 402, Maurya Atria Ahmedabad. Opp: Kalgi Stats Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcj 5104 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

purchase and sale of equity shares and derivative trading, amounting to Rs.75,78,885/- which was found not commensurate with the return of income filed by the assessee, had escaped assessment. But as per the ld.Pr.CIT, the AO despite information in his possession failed to verify this issue, and accordingly, he assumed jurisdiction under section 263

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.

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 and appropriate powers available under