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

revised by ld. PCIT and in any case the demat account was filed before the PCIT during revisionary proceedings. The assessee relied upon decision of ITAT in ITA no. 2586/Mum/2022, dated 02.03.2023 in the case of Karishma Ajay Agarwal v. ITO and also decision of ITAT in the case of ITO v. Shri Jimeet Vipul Modi in ITA No. 4297/Mum/2018

SNOWHILL AGENCIES PVT. LTD (MERGED WITH GALLOPS MOTORS P. LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1775/Ahd/2019 Asstt.Year : 2012-13 Snowhill Agencies P.Ltd. Pr.Cit, Kolkata-4 (Merged With Gallops Motors P.Ltd.) Vs Pr.Cit-2, Survey No.220P Ahmedabad) Nr.Amin Jcb Equipments S.G. Highway Sarkhej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaqcs 1535 F (Snowhill) Pan: Aaccg 2492 F)(Gallops)

revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call

BHARATSINGH AMARSINGH RAJPUT,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

ANKIT PRANLAL PATEL,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

MAHENDRA AMBALAL ROHIT,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

JITENDRA KUMAR SHIMPI,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

MAFATBHAI BHIKHABHAI PARMAR,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

IMTIYAZ KARIMBHAI VHORA,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

WILSON MIKHAEL TOPNO,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

SHRIKANTSINGH RAMDAYAL SHAKYA,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

ARBINDA KUMAR SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -2,, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Income-Tax-2, Race Course, Vadodara-390007 Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 7439 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. Section 263 itself is very clearly worded as under: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer

MEHAAN ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

U/S 263 of the Act. 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. DR submitted that the proceedings were initiated based on the (1) digital data seized and annexed as A/24 seized from the business premises of Reeva Corporation (PAN: AAUFR3518C), M/s. Rajyash M/s. Rajyash Buildcon (PAN : AATFR8334H), M/s. Rajyash Infraspace

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

revise the order u/s. 263 on the issue of export freight payment is not justified. This part of ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6.2 In respect of other part of ground of appeal of the assesse pertaining to non-submission of form 3CEB, it is noticed that ld. Pr. CIT has held that the order passed u/s

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

revised grounds of appeal filed on 28.12.2017 3. (a) CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty not accepting the contention that : i. Income & claim both are disclosed in return of income ii. Claim allowed by officer after due verification. b) The CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention that, it is settled principle that what is known to the department

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

revision and lastly; vi. In the absence of invoking explanation (2) of Section 263 of the Act, the assessment order could not have been held to be erroneous and causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue on account of AO having not carried out any particular inquiry. Reference was made to several judicial decisions in support of the contentions

A MENARINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Revision order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: Your appellant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds: 1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 has erred

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of Rs.2,02,50,500/-. The /earned assessing officer has also visited the actual site and seen encroachments on the land which does not allow the development of the land. So, considering the above facts, we think that the order passed by the learned assessing officer is not at all erroneous and not eligible for reopening u/s.263