ANMOL HIMANSHU PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HIMANSHU RAOJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4) NOW PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1479/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anmol Himanshu Patel The Ito बनाम/ (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Ward-1(1)(4) V/S. Raojibhai Patel) Now Present Jurisdiction Bs/B-7, Indraprasth Complex The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1) Nr. Inox Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqpp 6460 P (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) Vs. Dcit Asst.Year 2015-16. “1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Order Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act was not covered in the limited scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee. The AO did not take permission from the competent authority to cover the said issue or to convert the limited scrutiny into full scrutiny assessment, Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) vs. DCIT Asst.Year

ANANG KUNJVIHARIBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalincome-Tax Officer, Anang Kunjviharibhai Shah, Vs. Ward 7(2)(1), 1, Friends Colony, Sm Road, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan: Acups 2559 J] (Previously Dcit, Cir. 1(1)(2)) (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and accordingly made an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “4.0 Determination & Decision: The statement of facts, order appealed against, grounds of appeal

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. SHRI KETAN REALITIES PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance to the extent to accumulated profit as on 31.04.2010 and demanded tax thereon. Ketan Realities Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year 2011-2012 3 4. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: “…5.5 Apart from making out of the case that

KESAR BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-2028 Kesar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit 1St Floor Shri Kesar Cold Vs. Ahmedabad-3 Storage Plot No.B-2 To 9, Rev Survey No.85/2 Paiki Near Hotel Jyoti Vil Banaskantha. Pan : Aabck 4923 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025

disallowance. 2.4 Subsequently, on examination of assessment records, the PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, invoked revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by issuing a show cause notice to the assessee on 18.03.2025. The PCIT observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had failed to examine certain issues which rendered the assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

deemed dividends, which had to be included in the taxable income under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

deemed dividend as applicable as per Income Tax Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. At the time of hearing the assessee has taken additional ground thereby challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer thereby stating that there

ADDPOL CHEMSPECIALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) VADODRA, VADODRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

deemed dividend income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 and added the same. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the interest

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock-in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment

ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

deemed arbitrary and unjustified. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents which established that disallowances must be based on substantive evidence rather than estimations or assumptions. Cases such as, Om Prakash Joshi vs. ITO, Sonic Biochem Extractions (P.) Ltd.(supra), and CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No.2)(supra) reinforced the principle that arbitrary disallowances are not permissible. The Ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

deemed arbitrary and unjustified. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents which established that disallowances must be based on substantive evidence rather than estimations or assumptions. Cases such as, Om Prakash Joshi vs. ITO, Sonic Biochem Extractions (P.) Ltd.(supra), and CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No.2)(supra) reinforced the principle that arbitrary disallowances are not permissible. The Ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

deemed arbitrary and unjustified. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents which established that disallowances must be based on substantive evidence rather than estimations or assumptions. Cases such as, Om Prakash Joshi vs. ITO, Sonic Biochem Extractions (P.) Ltd.(supra), and CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No.2)(supra) reinforced the principle that arbitrary disallowances are not permissible. The Ld.CIT

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)

dividend earned during the year under consideration from the subject investments. It is very well settled position that in absence of earning of any exempt income by the assessee, disallowance u/s. 14A is not warranted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (2014) (223 taxmann.com

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)

dividend earned during the year under consideration from the subject investments. It is very well settled position that in absence of earning of any exempt income by the assessee, disallowance u/s. 14A is not warranted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (2014) (223 taxmann.com

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)

dividend earned during the year under consideration from the subject investments. It is very well settled position that in absence of earning of any exempt income by the assessee, disallowance u/s. 14A is not warranted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (2014) (223 taxmann.com

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)

dividend earned during the year under consideration from the subject investments. It is very well settled position that in absence of earning of any exempt income by the assessee, disallowance u/s. 14A is not warranted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (2014) (223 taxmann.com

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

deem it appropriate and proper to remand the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. Conclusion: 74. Our conclusions in this judgment are as follows; i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

deem it appropriate and proper to remand the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. Conclusion: 74. Our conclusions in this judgment are as follows; i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

deem it appropriate and proper to remand the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. Conclusion: 74. Our conclusions in this judgment are as follows; i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year

THE SANKHEDA JETPUR PAVI TALUKA GINNING PRESSING COTTON SALE CO.OP SOCIETY LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deemed disallowable, resulting in an underassessment of income amounting to Rs. 24,51,022/-. Thus, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was determined to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In the 263 notice, it was mentioned that the Assessing Officer failed to perform adequate inquiries based on the circumstances presented, resulting