M/S. VISHAL ENGINEERS & GALVANIZERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain arises on the said transaction : • CIT vs. Texspin Engg. & Mfg. Works 263 ITR 345 5. In this matter, we are concerned with assessment year 1996-97. Section 45(1) is a charging section as far as capital

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KHIMRAJ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1247/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri Ashokkumar Khimraj Ito, बनाम/ Prop. Ridhi Siddhi Ward – 3(1), Vs. Enterprises, 21, Shitalkunj Ahmedabad. Society, Rambaug Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpk 6404 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parin Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(here- in-after referred to as "the Act") dated 16.12.2010 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. Ashokkumar Khimraj vs. ITO A.Y. 2006-07 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. The Learned CIT(A) as well as the A.O have grossly erred

L/H LATE SHRI ARVINDBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL (SHRI PARESHBHAI PATEL),VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 263 dated 24.102.2020 issued under the signature of the PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara: “ With reference to the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I-T Act dated 16.12.2017 for A.Y. 2010-11, it is to be noted that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of the following

SMT. JYOTI SUNIL MANIYAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 888/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Smt Joyti Sunil Maniyar, Ito, बनाम/ C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ward – 2(4), Vs. 903, Sapphire Complex, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agepa 2433 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Lalit P Jain, Sr. D.R.

capital gain during the assessment proceedings. 5.6 The assessee in support of his argument has also furnished the affidavit of the accountant dated 21.11.2011 which is reproduced as under: “6.1 The attention is also drawn to the facts that, assessee's Accountant has firstly prepared the return as on 01.08.2010 and the tax / interest calculated thereon, on that date comes

M/S GREENWELL ORCHARDS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

sections 28(i) and 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset (Surrender of plot) - Assessment year

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)

263 of the Act and submitted that the reassessment in the present case was initiated based on information available on the Insight Portal, which indicated sale of immovable property. The assessee, upon receipt of notice under section 148 of the Act, filed her return of income, including capital gains

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)

263 of the Act and submitted that the reassessment in the present case was initiated based on information available on the Insight Portal, which indicated sale of immovable property. The assessee, upon receipt of notice under section 148 of the Act, filed her return of income, including capital gains

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 in the return. The Assessing Officer accepted the disclosure after assessment enquiry. The section 263 order does not demonstrate

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 in the return. The Assessing Officer accepted the disclosure after assessment enquiry. The section 263 order does not demonstrate

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:-

Section 263 was issued in relation to additional claim of premium of Rs. 3.95 Crores during the course of assessment proceedings on following grounds: 3.1 The AO has allowed the claim without examining necessary documentary evidences in relation to such claim. 3.2 The AO has not examined the taxability of capital gain

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

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

capital gain, partnership firm and other sources for an amount of Rs. 27,48,040.00 which was accepted in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. However, the learned PCIT under section 263

ARJUN DAS JASUJA,JABALPUR vs. THE CIT (IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.796/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Arjun Das Jasuja The Cit (It & Tp) बनाम/ 16, Nayagaon, Rampur Circle-2 V/S. Jebalpur Ahmedabad Madhya Pradesh – 462 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aehpj 3059 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nand Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

263 of the Act, which allows revision of an order that is passed without proper inquiry or verification. 6.2. Section 55 of the Act deals with the determination of the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of capital assets for the purposes of computing capital gains

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the return. The\nAssessing Officer accepted the disclosure after assessment enquiry.\nThe section 263 order does not demonstrate

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the return. The\nAssessing Officer accepted the disclosure after assessment enquiry.\nThe section 263 order does not demonstrate

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

capital gain and claim of deduction under section 54F. The issue of eligibility of claim of deduction was thus present to the mind of the Assessing Officer. Relevant documents were also shown to have been filed in the assessment proceedings. Expression 'a residential house' would encompass different residential units located on the different floors of the same building. On facts

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/-. Please verify the same. Hence, invoking the provisions of Section 263, considering very low income

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

263 of the Act and invocation of provisions of section 54B of the Act holding that the assessment order passed by the ld.AO under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Our discussions for adjudication of this issue as follows. 7. A perusal of the order of the ld.Pr.CIT reveals that