EFFECTIVE TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property has resulted in under assessment of Rs. 3,74,74,320/- and consequent short levy of tax of Rs. 1,76,37,993/-. The PCIT issued notice under Section 263

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 263 to us, appears to be a plausible explanation, and there is no doubt that in the consequent assessment, the assessee was assessed multiple times to its returned income, which forced him into action and he came to the consult another legal adviser on whose advise the present appeal was filed before us. The delay in filing of appeal

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)

Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return

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)

Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income from house property - Deductions (Interest) - Assessment year 2011-12 Assessee-company

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:

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. In the present case, the relevant provision is Section

VIPUL KAMAL PRAKASH SUD,SIDHPUR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

property sold, which was a single residential house. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly allowed deduction under Section 54 of the Act to the assessee and we do not find any error in the order of the Assessing Officer. Considering these facts, the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the Vipul Kamal Prakash

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether these basic conditions were satisfied in the present case and, if so, how this fact was brought on record in the order u/s. 263 of the Act passed by the Ld. PCIT. ITA Nos.1052 to 1054/Ahd/2025 Asst. Years 2017-18 to 2020-21 7 8. From the digital images

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether these basic conditions were satisfied in the present case and, if so, how this fact was brought on record in the order u/s. 263 of the Act passed by the Ld. PCIT. ITA Nos.1052 to 1054/Ahd/2025 Asst. Years 2017-18 to 2020-21 7 8. From the digital images

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether these basic conditions were satisfied in the present case and, if so, how this fact was brought on record in the order u/s. 263 of the Act passed by the Ld. PCIT. ITA Nos.1052 to 1054/Ahd/2025 Asst. Years 2017-18 to 2020-21 7 8. From the digital images

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEBABAD vs. VIJAY MANUBHAI HIRPARA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Housing Society, Ahmedabad B/h. Sardar Patel Mall, Vs. Room No.506, 5th Floor, Thakarbapa Nagar, Ayakar Bhavan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad – 382 350. Ahmedabad – 380 015 [PAN – AEBPH 5292 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hardik Vora, AR Revenue by Shri S. K. Agal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2025 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

SAURABH SUMANT PATWA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing unit was purchased by her parents, however, for the purpose of inheritance assessee’s name was added. 2.4. For AY 2017-18, the assessee similarly submitted various documents related to the purchase of property, contending that no cash payments were made and demanding copies of the data retrieved during the search of Murlidhar Trivedi's premises. The assessee compared

SAURABH SUMANT PATWA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing unit was purchased by her parents, however, for the purpose of inheritance assessee’s name was added. 2.4. For AY 2017-18, the assessee similarly submitted various documents related to the purchase of property, contending that no cash payments were made and demanding copies of the data retrieved during the search of Murlidhar Trivedi's premises. The assessee compared

KALPANA SAURABH PATWA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing unit was purchased by her parents, however, for the purpose of inheritance assessee’s name was added. 2.4. For AY 2017-18, the assessee similarly submitted various documents related to the purchase of property, contending that no cash payments were made and demanding copies of the data retrieved during the search of Murlidhar Trivedi's premises. The assessee compared

KALPANA SAURABH PATWA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing unit was purchased by her parents, however, for the purpose of inheritance assessee’s name was added. 2.4. For AY 2017-18, the assessee similarly submitted various documents related to the purchase of property, contending that no cash payments were made and demanding copies of the data retrieved during the search of Murlidhar Trivedi's premises. The assessee compared

DIPIKABEN KANIYALAL PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Principal Commissioner Of Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Income-Tax, Prop. Of Shivam Roadways, बनाम/ Ahmedabad-3, 17, Bhuyangdev Society, Sola Ahmedabad Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad, Vs. Gujarat -380061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shailesh Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

property. The PCIT, therefore, issued show-cause notice to the assessee thereby invoking Section 263 of the Act. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s submission, the PCIT directed the Assessing Officer to apply correct provisions of the Act, i.e. Section 115BBE while making addition towards on-money payments. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the PCIT

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

property\", \"Capital gains\" and \"Income from other\nsources"/, or a company [the principal business of which is the\nbusiness of trading in shares or banking for the granting of loans and\nadvances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other\ncompanies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be\ndeemed to be carrying on a speculation

JAYVANTKUMAR RAMANLAL CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

house within two years or constructs one within three years. In assessee’s case, the assessee sold his plot on 08.06.2017 for a net amount of Rs.89,10,000/- after deduction of transfer fees and TDS. The assessee deposited complete proceeds into capital gains account with Bank of Baroda on 31.03.2018 and since the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming

VIRAL RAJENDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19

263 in the facts and circumstances of this case there by ignoring the submission made and documentary evidence filed by the appellant before the A.O. in the course of Assessment Proceedings and again before him by the appellant.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the present order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT is not sustainable