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

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. On going through the instant facts, it is observed that firstly Principal CIT initiated 263 proceedings on the presumption that reassessment u/s 147

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

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

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

147 rws 144 of the Act dated 20-3-2023 has been set aside the revision order passed u/s 263 as well as consequential orders passed subsequent to revision proceeding are Null and VOID and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same please be held accordingly. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals

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

Section 263 is clearly applicable. The ld. PCIT rightly set aside the reassessment order passed by the AO , and rightly directed the AO to pass a fresh reassessment order after examining the facts of the case. Once the assessment was reopened u/s. 147

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

147 of the Act, which were initiated based on the information that the assessee had received unsecured loans/advances from M/s. Yash EPC Projects Pvt. Ltd., where the assessee held a significant shareholding. 3. The reassessment proceedings were initiated for the limited scrutiny purpose of verifying the applicability of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, which deals

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

u/s. 143(3) rws 147 of the Act. It is not the case of the assessee that the A.O. has not conducted necessary inquiry, verification before passing the reassessment order. The same cannot be construed either as ‘Lack of enquiry’ or as ‘Inadequate enquiry’. Thus the ld. PCIT cannot revise the reassessment order merely because he held a different opinion

ANIL EXPORTS (INDIA),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 263 is in respect of order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B passed on 25-03-2022. Thus, this contention of the ld. A.R. is rejected. While coming to the observations of the Pr. CIT that the reopening has not taken into account the accommodation entries and the Assessing Officer has not taken the cognizance of the information which was given

ANIL EXPORTS (INDIA),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 263 is in respect of order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B passed on 25-03-2022. Thus, this contention of the ld. A.R. is rejected. While coming to the observations of the Pr. CIT that the reopening has not taken into account the accommodation entries and the Assessing Officer has not taken the cognizance of the information which was given

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

263 of the Act on such invalid order which had no existence in the eyes of law. That therefore the orders passed ITA Nos. 338, 339, 758 & 759/Ahd/2024 [Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai] - 4 – u/s.263 of the Act for the said two years also needed to be set aside. Arguments were made before us to the above effect referring

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

263 of the Act on such invalid order which had no existence in the eyes of law. That therefore the orders passed ITA Nos. 338, 339, 758 & 759/Ahd/2024 [Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai] - 4 – u/s.263 of the Act for the said two years also needed to be set aside. Arguments were made before us to the above effect referring

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

263 of the Act on such invalid order which had no existence in the eyes of law. That therefore the orders passed ITA Nos. 338, 339, 758 & 759/Ahd/2024 [Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai] - 4 – u/s.263 of the Act for the said two years also needed to be set aside. Arguments were made before us to the above effect referring

LALITABEN DIPAKBHAI MODH,SURAT vs. PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 147 of the Act. Therefore a notice u/s. 148 dated 31-03- 2021 was issued to the assessee. 3. In response, the assessee filed her Return of Income on 28-04- 2021 declaring total income of Rs.99,520/-. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271F for not filing the return will within the time limit prescribed u/s

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

u/s 263 of the Act on such invalid order which had no\nexistence in the eyes of law. That therefore the orders passed\nu/s.263 of the Act for the said two years also needed to be set\naside. Arguments were made before us to the above effect\nreferring to the facts of the case and the law on the issue

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— Smt. Vanita Vaswani Vs. Pr. CIT AY : 2010-2011 8 (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, ~ belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, or any information contained therein

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “The Act”), wherein the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act were set aside with directions to make fresh assessments. 2. The assessee has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing these

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “The Act”), wherein the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act were set aside with directions to make fresh assessments. 2. The assessee has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing these

MANISHKUMAR SOMABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s. 263 by the respondent should be quashed and direction to make addition should be quashed.” 3. The return of income was filed on 29.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.7,85,229/-. The Assessing Order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 23.03.2022 thereby accepting the returned income. The PCIT observed