PRAVINSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 829/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 December 2025AY 2012-13Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the FMV as on 01.04.1981, as confirmed by the CIT(A), was reasonable and dismissed the appeal on this ground. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of the section 54B deduction but allowed expenses for land levelling and fencing as part of the cost of acquisition.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold land and claimed long-term capital gains (LTCG) and deductions under sections 54B and 54F. The Assessing Officer (AO) recomputed the fair market value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981, disallowed the section 54B deduction, and treated gifts as unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the correct fair market value of land as on 01.04.1981 for LTCG computation and the eligibility and quantum of deduction under section 54B for reinvestment in agricultural land.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 54F,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR
For Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 18.12.2025

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 08.03.2019 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66,77,877/- made towards computation of LTCG by adopting a different FMV as on 01/04/1981. (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in partly confirming the addition of Rs. 2,24,53,400/- made by disallowing the claim of de

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 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →