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

2– the assessment order passed u/s 144 rws 263 of the Act dated 27-02-2025 is also Null and VOID 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 144 rws 263 of the Act is illegal and invalid in view of the fact that the order passed u/s 263

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)

Section 263 of the Act seeking to revise reassessment order passed U/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act holding it as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. The order of Ld. A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and as such order of Ld. Pr. CIT is unjust, untenable and against principles of natural justice

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)

Section 263 of the Act seeking to revise reassessment order passed U/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act holding it as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. The order of Ld. A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and as such order of Ld. Pr. CIT is unjust, untenable and against principles of natural justice

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,BARODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Acit, Cir.2(1)(2) Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vs Baroda. Race Course Circle, Baroda Pan : Aadcm 7339 H

reassessment proceedings the issue is related to “prior period expenses” claimed by the assessee which was in the re-assessment order dated 30.12.2015. Therefore the present impugned order dated 22.03.2018 passed under section 263 is clearly time barred as per section 263(2

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

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

2)(a). 14. In these circumstances, once the donation is made to eligible institutions, and the requisite statutory conditions under section 80G are fulfilled, deduction cannot be denied merely because it coincides with or arises out of CSR obligations. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the assessment order on this issue, and the action of the PCIT in invoking section

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

2. To support this argument, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on several decisions in support of his contention. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the PCIT’s notices under section 263, dated 09-02-2024 and 26-02- 2024, stated that the assessee had received accommodation entries of ₹47,50,000/- from Jignesh Shah

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

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)

2 to section 263 will not come in the picture as the Assessing Officer has verified all the aspects about the details of cash deposits. The A.R. further stated that in respect of no assessment order, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Kunal Organics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Special Civil Application No. 16347 of 2004 order dated

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

2 Ovez Arifbhai Lakhani v. Pr. CIT Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act,1961 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/REV/F/ REV5/2023-24/1062495418(1), wherein ld. PCIT in exercise of its revisionary powers u/s 263 set aside the reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with Section

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

2. The Ld. PCIT has erred, both in law and on facts, in not appreciating that in order to invoke section 263, twin conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively viz. the underlying assessment order must be erroneous and such error must be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this case, Id. AO has passed reasoned assessment order after analysing

SHREE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,VADODARA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment being bad in law, illegal and non-est.. 2.00 Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act amounting to Rs.38,89,237/- 2.01 On the facts and circumstances of you appellant’s case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on wrong plea that interest earned on deposits kept with

SHREE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,VADODARA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY. CIT, CICLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment being bad in law, illegal and non-est.. 2.00 Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act amounting to Rs.38,89,237/- 2.01 On the facts and circumstances of you appellant’s case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on wrong plea that interest earned on deposits kept with

SHRI BHANVARLAL CHAMPALAL KANUGA,UNJHA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.95/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal The Principal Cit बनाम/ Kanuga Range-3 C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Pratyakash Kar Bhavan V/S. 512, Times Square – I Ahmedabad Opp. Ram Baug Bungalows Nr. Ravija Plaza Thaltej-Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 059. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk 0172 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar & Shri Aman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit(A)” In Short] In Exercise Of The Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga Vs. Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

Section 263, directing the AO to make all necessary inquiries and reassess the case afresh and reinforced the need for thorough examination and inquiry by the AO in scrutiny cases to ensure the Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga vs. Pr.CIT-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18 12 correctness and fairness of the assessment. The Tribunal emphasised that Explanation 2

DILIPKUMAR BABABHAI ZAVERI,PATAN, GUJARAT vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment\nproceedings, the AO conducted no inquiry on the information\navailable with him, and we, therefore, agree with the ld.Pr.CIT that in\nterms of Explanation (2) to sub-clause (a) to section 263

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:

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, dated 26/03/2022 which is sought to be revised u/s.263 itself was invalid, in inter alia on various grounds as mentioned below and thus proceedings Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati AY : 2015-16 [2] initiated under section 263

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

2. Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in law and on facts in revising order which is merged with order of CIT (A) and accordingly revision action is without jurisdiction as per Explanation 1(c) to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tax Effect: N.A. being a technical ground. 3. Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in law and on facts