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

BHOGILAL BAHILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT -1, VADOADAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 475/2 Sagar Faliya Vadodara. At & Post Bhayali Vadodara 391 410. Pan : Bkkpp 3136 R

u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the ground of appeal hereinabove contained.” 6. Above grounds of appeal demonstrate that they are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as they are a blend of descriptive and argumentative

BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Revised Return declaring total income of Rs.68,15,980/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,37,97,873/- and claimed Rs.75,16,000/- as deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and remaining Rs.62,81,873/- for taxation under the head LTCG. On further

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)

Capital Gain and it transpired that the assessee had claimed exempt LTCG of Rs. 16,35,050/- in his return of income. On the basis of this information, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reason. The assessee was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B

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

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

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 by the Assessing Officer

RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(2), 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)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and capital gain. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessee filed his Return of Income wherein assessment was completed u/s.143

THE ACIT. CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDBAD vs. RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI, AHMEDBAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and capital gain. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessee filed his Return of Income wherein assessment was completed u/s.143

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)

revision order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the PCIT under section 263, are such that for the Assessment Year 2018–19, it was found from the Insight Portal and ITBA system that the assessee had not filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, despite having undertaken substantial high-value transactions during the relevant financial year. Based

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR 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)

revision order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the PCIT under section 263, are such that for the Assessment Year 2018–19, it was found from the Insight Portal and ITBA system that the assessee had not filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, despite having undertaken substantial high-value transactions during the relevant financial year. Based

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

u/s 147 of the Act, the A.O. accepted the income declared in the return of income with the following remarks: "With the details available on record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and Nrupal Nareshchandra Raja vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 - 3– keeping in view the fast approaching time-barring date, the assessment proceedings in this case

TEJALBEN SAMIRKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 78/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Principal Commissioner Of 10, Opera Society, Vs. Income Tax-1, Vibhag-2, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Askps2898E

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 2015-2016. A.Y. 2015-16 2 2. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT erred in holding the Assessment Order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as erroneous

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

capital gain of Rs.92,12,772/- by manipulating trading by manipulating trading of penny stock, whereas the AO without making any verification accepted the reas the AO without making any verification accepted the reas the AO without making any verification accepted the returned income including bogus transaction, thereby reassessment returned income including bogus transaction, thereby reassessment returned income including bogus

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore delete the addition of Rs. 33,15,263. 28. Since, we have deleted the main addition of Rs. 33,15,263/-, therefore, the addition on account of commission payment of Rs. 3,29,188/- which is consequential in nature, and hence the same is here by deleted.' 7. Having regard to the aforesaid

VIJAY RAJNIKANT PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

revision u/s 263 is permissible when an assessment order is shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Both the conditions are compulsorily to be there. In the present case, admittedly, the assessment order is a limited scrutiny issues have been pointed out by the Pr. CIT for the purpose of invoking the powers u/s 263

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

revised is erroneous, and; (ii) the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue; both have to be satisfied in order to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. If any of them is absent then the recourse cannot be taken to the provision of section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

revised is erroneous, and; (ii) the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue; both have to be satisfied in order to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. If any of them is absent then the recourse cannot be taken to the provision of section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

revised is erroneous, and; (ii) the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue; both have to be satisfied in order to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. If any of them is absent then the recourse cannot be taken to the provision of section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether