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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

2(14), read with sections 28(i) and 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset (Surrender

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:

2 to Section 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

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

2. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 3. In the case in hand the assessee has sold an immovable property on 04.11.2009 i.e. during the F.Y. 2009-10. No return of income, however, was filed for the said A.Y. 2010-11. Thus, under Section

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

section 263 action on the survey disclosure does not survive. The Assessing Officer’s acceptance of the voluntarily offered Rs. 2,30,00,000/- as short-term capital gain

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

section 263 action on the survey disclosure does not survive. The Assessing Officer’s acceptance of the voluntarily offered Rs. 2,30,00,000/- as short-term capital gain

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.

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. Asstt. Year 2014-15 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated 18.3.2019 passed by the learned Pr.C.I.T. u/s.263

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)

capital gain, and Form 26AS. It was explained that the assessee held only 4% share in the said immovable properties jointly with family members. The assessee did not claim any exemption under section 54 of the Act. 3.3 The Assessing Officer examined the details and, in para 3.3 (para 3.4 in case of Binitaben Patel) of the assessment order, observed

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)

capital gain, and Form 26AS. It was explained that the assessee held only 4% share in the said immovable properties jointly with family members. The assessee did not claim any exemption under section 54 of the Act. 3.3 The Assessing Officer examined the details and, in para 3.3 (para 3.4 in case of Binitaben Patel) of the assessment order, observed

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

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-2016. Asstt. Year 2015-16 2 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned PCIT erred in holding the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial

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

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

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Pr. CIT - 1, Vadodara has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction in passing the order u/s 263, more so when the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 22.06.2017 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. That having regard

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 PCIT held that the\nAssessing Officer accepted this disclosure without adequate enquiry,\nalthough it related to advances received through Safal Engineers and\nRealities LLP.\nThus, across the four years in appeal, the consolidated position\nis that the PCIT has found fault with (i) the non-taxation of alleged\non-money receipts from the Makarba

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 PCIT held that the\nAssessing Officer accepted this disclosure without adequate enquiry,\nalthough it related to advances received through Safal Engineers and\nRealities LLP.\nThus, across the four years in appeal, the consolidated position\nis that the PCIT has found fault with (i) the non-taxation of alleged\non-money receipts from the Makarba

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

capital have been held to be genuine by Ld. CIT(A). In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. 182 Taxman 183 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the assessee company claimed relief under Section 80-I of the Act. The Assessing Officer allowed claim of the assessee partially by reworking

JOGESHBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Jogeshbhai Ramanlal Patel The Pcit-3, C.A. Ashokkumar S. Gupta, C-411, Pratykash Kar 203/1, New Cloth Market, O/S. Bhavan, Ambawadi, Vs Raipur Gate, Raipur, Gujarat-380009 Ahmedagad-380002 [Pan No. : Aaxpp3232E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent By : Shri A. P. Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2022

Section A.Y. 2017-18 3 263 of the Act. Hence, a show-cause notice dated 10.06.2021 was issued to the assessee calling for his reply. The assessee was also requested as to why the Long Term Capital Gain (in short ‘LTCG’) should not be taken as Rs. 97,98,327/- without affording Cost Inflation Index as worked as under

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the Act, I set aside the assessment order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the IT. Act, 1961 on 30.12.2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify/examine the claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain from the sale of shares of "Look Health

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

2 to section 263, and the various case laws , and thereafter, he came to the conclusion that Assessing Officer has erred in not verifying the issue of long term capital gain

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

2, your goodself would find that there is no claim made by me in respect of any long term capital gain in my return of income. On the contrary, I have offered short term capital gain of Rs.2,01,125/- earned by me during the year under consideration for taxation. Even in my profit and loss account at Annexure

SHRI KETAN RAMNIKLAL MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Ketan Ramniklal Mehta, Income-Tax Officer, 10, Nishant Bungalows, Part-1, Vs Ward 7(2), Nr. Shyamal Char Rasta, Satellite Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad – 380015 Pan : Aevpm 2649 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

263 of the Act as applicable. Here it gains importance that the principles of res judicata do not strictly apply to the Income-tax proceedings. • The assessee vide its own submission has contradicted his own disclosure by submitting that he held the share only as investment. As the assessee himself has disclosed the share trading activity j derivatives trading