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

L K INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(CURRENTLY KNOWN AS SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.),,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

revised is erroneous and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the ld. PCIT has not fulfilled the pre-requisite of exercising jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the act, therefore, we are not inclined with the findings of the Ld. PCIT for invoking the proceedings u/s

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY L.K. INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

revised is erroneous and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the ld. PCIT has not fulfilled the pre-requisite of exercising jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the act, therefore, we are not inclined with the findings of the Ld. PCIT for invoking the proceedings u/s

IMTIYAZ KARIMBHAI VHORA,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

MAFATBHAI BHIKHABHAI PARMAR,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

ARBINDA KUMAR SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

MAHENDRA AMBALAL ROHIT,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

BHARATSINGH AMARSINGH RAJPUT,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

SHRIKANTSINGH RAMDAYAL SHAKYA,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

WILSON MIKHAEL TOPNO,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

JITENDRA KUMAR SHIMPI,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

ANKIT PRANLAL PATEL,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

revised grounds of appeal filed on 28.12.2017 3. (a) CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty not accepting the contention that : i. Income & claim both are disclosed in return of income ii. Claim allowed by officer after due verification. b) The CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention that, it is settled principle that what is known to the department

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

u/s. 263 is liable to be quashed. 12.5. Our above view is further supported by the Rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court judgements on this subject which would throw useful light on the scope of enquiry under Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act, which are as follows: (a) CIT vs. Nirav Modi

TRUE SPARROW SYSYTEM PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, we hold that the Ld

263 of the Act to disallow the claim of assessee of Rs. 5,93,30,777/- u/s. 10AA of the Act. 4. Before ld. Pr. CIT, the A.R. of the assessee submitted that assessee satisfied all conditions enumerated u/s. 10AA of the Act and was eligible for I.T.A No. 765/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 4 True Sparrow System

ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

revision proceedings for compensation expenses incurred in the year under consideration without considering the fact that such expenditure was incurred as per contractual terms of Memorandum of Understanding and does not represent any penalty which attracts disallowance u/s 28 to 44DA of the Act. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the PCIT

MADRESA MOHAMMADIYAN AND PANJATANIYA,DAHOD GUJARAT vs. CIT(E), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Madressa Mohammadiyn & Cit(Exemption) Panjataniya, Madresa Raildings Nehru Bridge B/H. Tower Talav Road, Dahod. Ahmedabad. Pan : Brdmo 8620 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

disallowed only 15 percent. Invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 and clause (a) thereof, the PCIT held that the order is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as inquiries or verification which should have been made were not made, and that the Assessing Officer ought to have independently verified genuineness of the trust

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -2,, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Income-Tax-2, Race Course, Vadodara-390007 Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 7439 H 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) 2013-14. 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 of the assessment order was assumed u/s. 263 of the Act noting three irregularities in the same as under:- i) incorrect allowance of interest accrued but not paid on loans from PFC; ii) wrong claim of Bad Debts; iii) incorrect allowance of provision on account of Leave Encashment. These facts find mention at paragraph