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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

section 263 (1)(b) of the Act namely the A.O. has not conducted proper enquiry while passing the reassessment order. It is seen from the record, more particularly Paper Book at pages 115 to 178 in reply to the show cause notice issued u/s.142[1] dated 09.08.2017, the assessee produced before the Assessing Officer copy of the sale register, sales

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)

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 order passed U/s 147

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 order passed U/s 147

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)

reassessment order, therefore the Revision proceedings is barred u/s. 263(1) of the Act. Further the reply of the assessee reads as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that proceedings for the levy of penalty are independent and separate from assessment proceedings and in the case of J.K.D. costa 133 ITR 7, Delhi their Lordship proceeded to state that

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

u/s 147 of the Act was passed on the basis of information available to the A.O. at that time, and therefore, the order cannot be deemed erroneous under the meaning of section 263. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on several judicial decisions to support this contention. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that this

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

u/s 147 r.w.s.1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (\"Act\") for\nAY 2017-18 has become erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue within the meaning of section 263 of the I.T. Act and hence, it is a\nfit case for revision u/s.263 of the Act.”\n3. 1. The assessee made detailed reply about the wrong notice\nissued

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. On the facts and circumstances of the case since Original Assessment order passed u/s 147 rws 144 of the Act has been set aside the revision order passed us 263 as well as consequential orders passed subsequent to revision proceeding are not valid in eyes of law. It is therefore prayed before your honours that order passed by lower

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

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

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

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

SHRI VIJAY D. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-7,, AHMEDABAD

reassessment proceedings,u/s. 147 of the Act.The assessee had failed to file any return originally, but on initiation of re-assessment proceedings, return was filed declaring income of Rs. 33,260,50/- under the head income from other sources. The same was accepted by the AO. Subsequently on perusal of records, the ld. PCIT noted the following errors therein

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)

1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 had been registered on 19.01.2021 against Sh. Viram bhai and six other family members, which included the assessee before us. It was pointed out that in A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 orders passed u/s.147 of the Act making addition to the income of the assessee were subjected

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)

1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 had been registered on 19.01.2021 against Sh. Viram bhai and six other family members, which included the assessee before us. It was pointed out that in A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 orders passed u/s.147 of the Act making addition to the income of the assessee were subjected

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)

1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 had been registered on 19.01.2021 against Sh. Viram bhai and six other family members, which included the assessee before us. It was pointed out that in A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 orders passed u/s.147 of the Act making addition to the income of the assessee were subjected

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

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)

1 of the order u/s. 263 categorically mentioned that the initiation of 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

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)

1 of the order u/s. 263 categorically mentioned that the initiation of 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

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. 139(1