NIRMALABEN KAMLESHBHAI CONTRACTOR,VADODARA vs. ASSTT. UNIT,CURRENT JURIS.-THE ITO,WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

ITA 1911/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 February 2026AY 2016-17Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO was unjustified in adopting a lower deemed cost of acquisition for the assessee compared to her co-owners without cogent reasons, thus allowing the assessee's claimed long-term capital gain based on Rs.37,84,000/-. For the Section 54EC deduction, the tribunal found that the investment was made within the prescribed period (47 days after the last consideration receipt), thereby allowing the deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-owner, sold an immovable property. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected her claimed deemed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 (Rs.37,84,000/-, accepted for co-owners) and adopted a lower DVO value (Rs.18,07,032/-). The AO also disallowed a deduction of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 54EC for investment in REC bonds, alleging it was not made within the stipulated time frame. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting a lower deemed cost of acquisition for the assessee as compared to her co-owners for capital gains calculation. 2. Whether the assessee's investment in REC bonds qualified for deduction under Section 54EC, specifically regarding the timeliness of the investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54EC,Section 148,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.02.2026Pronounced: 27.02.2026

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

-

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)/National faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The learned CIT(Appeal) erred in law and on facts in considering deemed cost of property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.18,07,032/- as determined by DVO in place of Rs.37,84,000/- adopted by the Appellant on the basis of registered approval valuer’s report, inspite of the fact that the said value of registered valuer was accep

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 54EC

All 476 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54EC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →