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)

1. The Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act seeking to revise reassessment

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1)(c) and 271B were initiated, besides levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and raised several grounds contending that the original reassessment itself was void, that the order under section 263

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

reassessment proceedings were framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 13th December 2017 after making any addition of Rs. 39,05,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee. It is necessary to clarify at this juncture that there was a mismatch in the amount recorded in the reasons for reopening

SHRI ATUL HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Atul Hiralal Shah, D.C.I.T, 8, Amrashirish Bungalows, Vs. Central Circle-1(2), Near Prahladnagar Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aljps4966M

263 of the Act. 11.2 Now coming to question before us whether the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 9th March 2018 was passed within the time limit specified under the provision of section 153B of the Act. The provision of section 153B(1) of the Act as amended by Finance Act 2016 provides

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

263 by the Ld. PCIT in the\ninstant case is that the penalty notice was issued under section\n271(1)(c) instead of the penalty provision rightly applicable section\n271AAC(1) of the Act, as discussed in the body of the reassessment

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

1). We find that the Assessing Officer had access to the relevant material and formed a view after examining the explanation of the assessee. Merely because a different view could be taken or further inquiries could have been made does not justify revision under section 263. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex v. CIT (supra) held

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

reassessment proceedings and disallowed 100% of the purchases amounting to ₹77,61,745/- . The Principal Commissioner has not disputed the quantum of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The sole basis for invoking section 263 is that, according to the Principal Commissioner, the disallowance should have been made under section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act instead

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

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

Section 271AAC(1) in the reassessment order, however wrongly issued penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion, the revisionary jurisdiction invoked u/s. 263

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

263(1) of the Act has been inserted w.e.f. 1-6-2015 only, whereas the assessment years involved herein is 2008-09 to 2010-11. The said Explanation reads as follows: “[Explanation 2. – For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

263(1) of the Act has been inserted w.e.f. 1-6-2015 only, whereas the assessment years involved herein is 2008-09 to 2010-11. The said Explanation reads as follows: “[Explanation 2. – For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous

HIRENKUMAR LAVJIBHAI KANANI,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

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

reassessment was originally initiated. 14. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/08/2024 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/08/2024 TANMAY, Sr. PSआदेश

GHANSHYAMBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

1, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings and the impugned reassessment order. As the reassessment itself stands quashed all other issue raised in the appeal are rendered infructuous and do not coil for any adjudication" [II] BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWAMLI VS ITA ITA NO: 3814/DEL/2011 I.T.A No. 1007/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 10 Ghanshyambhai Ambalal Patel vs. Pr. CIT [Copy

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

1) Who are the precise searched persons (11) Statement of the searched persons not produced along with show cause notice (iii) What is the seized material? (iv) Did those persons mentioned the name of the assessee in their statement? (v) Whether any incriminating material belonging to the assessee has been found from these searched persons? (vi) How my transaction

SHAH JITENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL HUF,ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1, 2015. The A.O. clearly made due inquiry based on the recorded reasons, and took into consideration the detailed reply filed by the assessee, and thereafter passed the order without making any addition. Since due inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer, Explanation 2 of Section 263 is not applicable, particularly as the case pertains to AY 2014-15, prior

SMT. VANITA VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2010-11 Smt. Vanita Vaswani, The Pcit (Central), 2, Samprat Co-Op. Housing Vs Ahmedabad Society Limited, Opp. Rivera, 11, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad - 380015 Pan : Aakpv 7868 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar & Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad Dated 28.03.2021, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2010-2011. The Assessee Has Taken 7 Grounds Of Appeal Which Read As Under:- “1. The Ld. Pcit (Central), Ahmedabad ("The Pcit") Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Invoking Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") & Has Further Erred In Directing The Ld. Ao To Pass Fresh Assessment Order Incorporating The Market Value Of The Property As Per Section 50C Of The Act. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Case Of The Appellant In Failing To Take Smt. Vanita Vaswani Vs. Pr. Cit Ay : 2010-2011 2

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Earlier scope of section 153C was in the cases where the documents seized belong to the assessee, but subsequently the provision of Act has been amended by adding the word 'relating to' in the section 153C. The AO in the present case has issued notice after