M/S. ROQUETTE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation and investment allowance had been claimed by the assessee. 14. Similarly the assessee had filed all details of TDS deducted on legal, professional and advertisement expenses, correlating it with their ledger accounts in the books of the assessee and further supplementing the claim with TDS returns filed. Thus the assessee had demonstrated that the claim of the assessee

VEER PLASTICS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

263 whereby assessee was called upon to show cause as to why Asst. Order should not be revised in relation to following items: Deduction u/s 80IC (Points 2-7): " "Other income" of Rs.26,24,805/- needs to be considered as income not derived from manufacturing activities for the purposes ofS.80IC. Consequently, excess deduction of Rs.7,87,401/- u/s 80IC

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

revised return of income u/s. 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 04.03.2007 declaring total income at nil. A search operation u/s. 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the Bodal Group cases by issuing warrant of authorization u/s. 132(1) of the Act on 09.02.2012 and various documents/books of accounts/other valuable articles/other

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

depreciation claim is reduced against this amount. Hence, the present issue is not fit case under the criteria as envisaged u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the powers u/s. 263 of the Act on this issue. ITA No. 194/Ahd/2022 [ M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – 5 Ground

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. ACULIFE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the Department’s appeal for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 are dismissed, and the assessee’s Cross Objections are allowed for the impugned asses...

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

revision order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act on 01-09-2021. The appellate order passed by Ld ITA Nos. 789 & 790/Ahd/2023 with C.O. Nos. 20&21/A/2023 ACIT vs. Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2016-17 Commissioner of Income (Appeals) in the second round giving effect to order u/s 263 of I.T. Act cannot be subject matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. ACULIFE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the Department’s appeal for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 are dismissed, and the assessee’s Cross Objections are allowed for the impugned asses...

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

revision order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act on 01-09-2021. The appellate order passed by Ld ITA Nos. 789 & 790/Ahd/2023 with C.O. Nos. 20&21/A/2023 ACIT vs. Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2016-17 Commissioner of Income (Appeals) in the second round giving effect to order u/s 263 of I.T. Act cannot be subject matter

DIAMINES AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

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

Revision power under section 263 for making further inquiries by Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee further submitted that the Plant & Machinery which were acquired and installed are eligible for deduction u/s. 32(1)(iia) for additional depreciation

DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT- 1, BARODA

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

Revision power under section 263 for making further inquiries by Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee further submitted that the Plant & Machinery which were acquired and installed are eligible for deduction u/s. 32(1)(iia) for additional depreciation

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.

263 of the Act as found by the ld. CIT (IT & TP). 10. Undoubtedly, the assessment order sought to be revised was passed u/s 147 of the Act on reopening the case of the assessee for the specific reason that the Assessing Officer had information regarding the dubious dealing in shares of M/s. Kushal Limited. Clearly, the scope of reassessment

ALPS LIESURE HOLIDAY PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Us. We Have Noted That Despite

depreciation on bogus addition to fixed assets amounting to Rs. 18,78,925/- for the impugned year. Ld. Pr. CIT noted that during assessment proceedings, the assessee had explained that the source of the bogus share capital was the money infused from the payment made by it to various firms/individuals on account of bogus expenditure which was capitalized

TORRENT POWER GRID LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

263, has noted that "on the issue of claim of higher rate of depreciation on motor car purchased during the year the assessee has furnished evidence of purchase on 25-10-2019 to clarify that the depreciation has been correctly claimed as per law. The explanation is considered acceptable and so far as deduction u/s 80G is concerned, the appellant

SACHCHADE FOOD PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 89/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Sachchade Food Private Limited, P.C.I.T., 407/3, New Ahmedabad Industrial Vs. Ahmedabad-3, Estate, Ahmedabad. Village: Moraiya Tal. Sanand, Ahmedabad-382213. Pan: Aatcs9292G

u/s 263 of the Act in respect of the captioned assessment year vide show cause notice dated 20-03-2021. 6. The assessee vide submission dated 25-03-2021 contended that difference in income declared in original return viz-a-viz revised return is arising due to change in depreciation

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT-2, BARODA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Principal Commissioner Of Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd., Income-Tax-2, Off. Nana Mava Main Road, Vs. Vadodara Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360004 Pan : Aadcp 1453 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, 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) 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

revision under Section 263 of the Act. 3 Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2014-15 (i) Incorrect allowance of additional depreciation; (ii) Wrong claim of Bad Debts These facts find mention at paragraph nos. 2 & 2.1 of the order of the ld. PCIT as under: “2. Incorrect allowance of additional depreciation:- On verification of records

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

revised • Investments in SPVs (Jhajjar KT Transco Pvt Ltd) should be excluded while applying Rule 8D since the investment was mandatory requirement for executing the EPC contract awarded. • Hence, the investment in SPV should be excluded from the value of total investments while computing disallowance under Rule 8D • Reliance is placed on decision of • ACIT, Circle

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

revised • Investments in SPVs (Jhajjar KT Transco Pvt Ltd) should be excluded while applying Rule 8D since the investment was mandatory requirement for executing the EPC contract awarded. • Hence, the investment in SPV should be excluded from the value of total investments while computing disallowance under Rule 8D • Reliance is placed on decision of • ACIT, Circle

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

revised • Investments in SPVs (Jhajjar KT Transco Pvt Ltd) should be excluded while applying Rule 8D since the investment was mandatory requirement for executing the EPC contract awarded. • Hence, the investment in SPV should be excluded from the value of total investments while computing disallowance under Rule 8D • Reliance is placed on decision of • ACIT, Circle

J vs. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,VADODARAVS.THE PR. CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

revising the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by invoking powers u/s 263 despite the fact that the conditions stipulated for invoking such extra ordinary jurisdiction were not satisfied. 2. The learned PCIT erred in fact and law in setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and directed to frame fresh

OLYMPIC DECOR LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Olympic Décor Llp Pr.Commissioner Of 6, Patel Avenue, Nr.Gurudwara Vs Income Tax-3 Sg Highway, Bodakdev Ambawadi Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Adafs 2113 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ars : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 8. The Ld. PCIT has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the view taken by the AO during the assessment proceedings is a possible view and hence the revisionary proceedings are illegal and bad in law. 9. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law in not coming