M/S. OTHELLO DEVELOPERS,,BARODA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Othello Developers Ito, Ward-1(2)(4) 402, 4Th Floor Vs Vadodara. R.K. Centre, Fatehgunj Main Road, Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabfo 4301 M

revision is made in order passed u/s 263. 7. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in observing that the assessment u/s. 143(3) was framed without proper enquiry and verification without giving an opportunity to rebut the said observation. 8. The revisional order u/s. 263 passed by the Id. PCIT being bad in law needs

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

house. There were no talking terms between the assessee and his father. In order to relinquish his rights in the investments made by his father in the joint names, an affidavit was executed on 25.11.20017, clearly stating on oath that the assessee relinquishes all his rights in favour of his parents and information about the alleged property was also mentioned

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-4(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

house. There were no talking terms between the assessee and his father. In order to relinquish his rights in the investments made by his father in the joint names, an affidavit was executed on 25.11.20017, clearly stating on oath that the assessee relinquishes all his rights in favour of his parents and information about the alleged property was also mentioned

SHRI VIJAYBHAI HATHISING SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

revised u/s. 263 of the Act by directing the A.O. to make the fresh assessment. 3.2. The assessee filed its reply dated 06.03.2020 that the house situated at Ambli Gam, Tal House has been inhabitable on the date of transfer of the assts. The aforesaid house was not used for resident at all, as the said property

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property from unsold housing stock. 8. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the appellant contradicting himself with ITA Nos. 140 to 142/Ahd/2011 Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 3 his own assertion made

M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property from unsold housing stock. 8. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the appellant contradicting himself with ITA Nos. 140 to 142/Ahd/2011 Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 3 his own assertion made

M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property from unsold housing stock. 8. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the appellant contradicting himself with ITA Nos. 140 to 142/Ahd/2011 Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 3 his own assertion made

KUM. NALINI SURRENDRABHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house was constructed on one 4 plot. The sale deed of two plots are identical and sale deed for Plot no.34 does not mention anywhere that there was residential building sold through the sale deed. From the sale deed itself apparent that both were only plots of land, though the contentions of the assessee that two different kinds of properties

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revised is erroneous; and (ii) if is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. If one of them is absent-if the order of the Income-tax officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263