THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

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.

4. The ld. CIT (IT & TP) accordingly issued a show-cause notice to the assessee as to why the assessment order be not 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

GAJIBEN MAHOTJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(8), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

b) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

120 that: "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this we derive comfort and 9 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. A.M.Y. Delameter at page

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

120 that: "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this we derive comfort and 9 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. A.M.Y. Delameter at page

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

120 that: "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this we derive comfort and 9 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. A.M.Y. Delameter at page

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

120 that: "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this we derive comfort and 9 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. A.M.Y. Delameter at page

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

120 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 19611 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.733(E), dated the 31 July, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II., Section 3. Sub-section (u), dated the 31 July, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted