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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

2 in the memo of Appeal before the first appellate authority and in his order dated 12th October, 2011. Both these matters are very much part of the revisional authority's order dated 29th March, 2012. The attempt to reopen them cannot be saved as clause (c) of Explanation below sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Income

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

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

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)

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 to revision

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)

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 to revision

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)

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 to revision

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

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

147 read with section 143(3) was passed on 30.12.2015 and disallowed “prior period expenditure” of Rs.16,02,98,000/- and determined the total income at Rs.10,96,93,680/-. Thereafter, Pr.CIT issued show cause notice under section 263 on 13.3.2018. 8. The ld.AR further pleaded that the show cause notice issued under section 263 is relating

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

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 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual has not filed the Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2018-19. Information received from the insight portal of the Department that

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)

2. The Learned PCIT has erred in law in holding that the order of the A.O. is found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, though the Learned PCIT has not established the same. 3. The Learned PCIT has erred in law invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the act by issuing notice, which is barred

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)

2. The Learned PCIT has erred in law in holding that the order of the A.O. is found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, though the Learned PCIT has not established the same. 3. The Learned PCIT has erred in law invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the act by issuing notice, which is barred

RAMANBHAI JETHABHAI JADAV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2016-17

147 r.w.s. 144B is void ab-initio before the CIT(A). The assessee cannot take the challenge of the validity of assessment order in the proceedings which are derived u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the additional ground No. 2 of appeal taken by the assessee is dismissed. 6. As regards additional ground nos. 1 and 2 relating

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