THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL ENGINEERING & GALVANIZERS,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 45(4), profits arising from transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm is chargeable to tax as income of the firm in a previous year in which the transfer takes place and for the purposes of section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

Capital Gain of Rs.16,63,000/- be considered as against Rs. 1,63,000/- mentioned in notice. Without prejudice to the above, I have to submit that the total cost of plot including various expenditure, were genuine expenses. All necessary details, evidences and original bills were produced at the time of assessment. All such evidences were verified by the learned

KAVITA JAYESHKUMAR KOTAK,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain from the sale of shares of "Looks Health Care Services Ltd" on the lines suggested in foregoing paragraph and pass the assessment order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard.” 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that proceedings u/s. 153A were carried on in respect of the assessee and order u/s

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-4(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

263 of the Act had come for consideration before the Ld. AO or not. 20. As regards the first transaction for the sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- received from sale of immovable property jointly hold by the assessee’s family members including his father, mother, brother and assessee himself and the disclosure of capital gain arising there from

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

263 of the Act had come for consideration before the Ld. AO or not. 20. As regards the first transaction for the sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- received from sale of immovable property jointly hold by the assessee’s family members including his father, mother, brother and assessee himself and the disclosure of capital gain arising there from

SHRI BALKRISHNA P.TRIVEDI,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-III,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

263 of the Act confers power upon the Pr.CIT/CIT to call for and examine the records of a proceeding under the Act and revise and order if he considers the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Pr.CIT can take recourse to revision under s.263 of the Act where the assessment order

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

revised grounds of appeal filed on 28.12.2017 3. (a) CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty not accepting the contention that : i. Income & claim both are disclosed in return of income ii. Claim allowed by officer after due verification. b) The CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention that, it is settled principle that what is known to the department

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

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revised return of income on 18th June, 2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,07,53,050/-. The case of the assessee was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the act was issued on 8th August, 2013. The Assessing Officer has passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31st March, 2015 and assessed

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

capital gain on the sale/purchase of shares, and the same was exempt u/s. 10(38). It was submitted that ld PCIT has observed during revisionary proceedings that the AO did not call for and verify the demat account. It was submitted that the demat account was duly submitted before the ld. PCIT during the course of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

capital gain after enquiry is a plausible view on the record. The learned PCIT could not revise the assessment to merely pursue a different characterisation without demonstrating both error and prejudice. The revision on this issue is quashed. 8. Conclusion 8.1 We have carefully perused the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned PCIT in support of his action under

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

capital gain after enquiry is a plausible view on the record. The learned PCIT could not revise the assessment to merely pursue a different characterisation without demonstrating both error and prejudice. The revision on this issue is quashed. 8. Conclusion 8.1 We have carefully perused the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned PCIT in support of his action under

KUM. NALINI SURRENDRABHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 263 ought to be cancelled. (6)(a) That the learned CI T-l,Baroda has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order de-nova. (b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law no such fresh assessment is required to be made as the same will unnecessarily prolong the proceedings

MOHSIN ZULFIKAR KORADIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Mohsin Zulfikar Koradia The Pr.Cit-3 C/O.Gujarat Food Industries Vs Ahmedabad. 4324 Phase Iv Gidc Vatva Ahmedabad 382 445 Pan : Htpk 0799 C

263 of the Act, so that the entire action on part of Pr, CIT was illegal and unlawful. 2.1 The Ld. Pr. CIT has grievously erred in law and on facts in holding that the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 On 20-11-2018 by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue

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

capital gains by assessee without considering any details related to working of indexed cost of acquisition - Principal Commissioner invoked section 263 and passed revisionary order setting aside matter to Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment - Whether in view of CBDT Instruction No. 7/2015, 20/2015 and 5/2016 and CBDT letter dated 30- 11-2017, it was established that Assessing Officer could

SHRI VIJAYBHAI HATHISING SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

capital gains on account of sale of aforesaid two lands, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 3,96,79,796/- u/s. 54F of the Act on purchase of new residential house. However on perusal of statement of fixed assets being part of balance sheet for the financial year 2014-15, the assessee was the owner of the two residential houses

STERLING ADDLIFE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Sterling Addlife India The Pr.Cit-4 Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs. Sterling Hospital Buildings Off Gurukul Road Memnagar Ahmedabad-380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 0897 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax–4, Ahmedabad [Cit In Short] Dated 28/03/2018 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

263 of the Act. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a private limited company and deriving income from hospital-medical services. The AO framed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29-02-2016 after making an addition of Rs. 7,86,579/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Subsequently

SHRI DINESH CHHAGANLAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016

revised is erroneous; and (ii) It is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 10.2 If any one of them is absent i.e., if the assessment order is not erroneous but it is prejudicial to the Revenue, the provision of section 263 cannot be invoked and vice-versa. The provisions of section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked