INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SONABEN ANILKUMAR VARIYA, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1368/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 June 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 12,72,75,694 on account of undisclosed LTCG. The CIT(A) had previously deleted this addition, stating that the income pertained to agreements to sell (Banakhat) which had not culminated into registered sale deeds. The ITAT had previously set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate the facts and directions from the ITAT, specifically regarding the verification of TDS mismatch and the nature of agreements. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by verifying TDS claims and the nature of agreements to sell as per ITAT directions, and whether the conditions for 'transfer' under the Income Tax Act were met.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(47)(v),Section 53A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE- & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Hearing: 08.06.2026Pronounced: 12.06.2026

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:

-

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the appellate order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ahmedabad, relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

(a) On facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of 12,72,75,694/made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) without properly appreciating the facts of the case and material available on record Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 2– (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee has carried forw

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(47)(v)

All 328 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47)(v) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →