What is CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl authority for?

A reference to the Director of Valuation (DVO) to ascertain the fair market value (FMV) as on 1.4.1981 is invalid if the assessee's claimed value is in accordance with a Registered Valuer's estimate and the Assessing Officer believes the claimed value is less than the FMV.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl?

36 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl (367 ITR 238), spanning 2015 to 2025.

CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl (367 ITR 238)

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(12), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Cawas Darasha Karaka, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Adjournment application filed

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 49(1)Section 55(2)(a)Section 69A

…ion claimed by assessee as at 01.04.1981 is “more” than FMV. Reliance is placed on: ITA No. 499/Ahd/2018 ITO Vs. Shri Cawas Darasha Karaka Asst. Year: 2013-14 - 15- ○ DCIT vs Vinod Harilal Mehta - ITA 2945/Ahd/2013; ○ CIT vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan - (2014) 367 ITR 238 (Guj); ○ CIT vs. Puja Prints - (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom); Thus, reference to DVO is invalid and hence, FMV adopted by assessee cannot be disturbed. Even on that count, CIT(A) has rightly held that even the addition of Rs.3,42,69,479/- cannot be made by AO. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The fol…

Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 415, Dabhi Street, Near Zanda Chowk, Ward-2(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akcpn2062P िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rushin Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 55A

…in on transaction of sale of land prior to 1-7-2012, the assessee in that case was allowed similar relief by the Tribunal, by following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 356/224 Taxman 253/367 ITR 238 (Guj.) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Pooja Prints [2014] 43 taxmann.com 247/224 Taxman 22/360 ITR 697 (Bom.). The relevant part of decision of Tribunal in Ranchodbhai C. Patel (supra) is extracted below; '9.We have considered the rival contention of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that on…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…. During the course of appellate hearing, Ld. AR has referred various decisions of co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ITAT wherein identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gauranginiben S. ShodhanIndl 367 ITR 238 has also held as under: “15. Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…detailed discussion made in assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3135/M/2019 and mainly relying upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Puja Prints 360 ITR 697 and Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT V. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl 367 ITR 238, it was held that as land sold by assessee is prior to 01/07/2012 i.e amendment brought to Section 55A, assessee has determined Income from capital gain based upon Registered Valuer report and Assessing Officer has claimed that fair market value of land as on 01st April 1981 was lower than such valuer report, Assessing Officer was not justified i…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…. During the course of appellate hearing, Ld. AR has referred various decisions of co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ITAT wherein identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gauranginiben S. ShodhanIndl 367 ITR 238 has also held as under: “15. Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…detailed discussion made in assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3135/M/2019 and mainly relying upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Puja Prints 360 ITR 697 and Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT V. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl 367 ITR 238, it was held that as land sold by assessee is prior to 01/07/2012 i.e amendment brought to Section 55A, assessee has determined Income from capital gain based upon Registered Valuer report and Assessing Officer has claimed that fair market value of land as on 01st April 1981 was lower than such valuer report, Assessing Officer was not justified i…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…detailed discussion made in assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3135/M/2019 and mainly relying upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Puja Prints 360 ITR 697 and Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT V. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl 367 ITR 238, it was held that as land sold by assessee is prior to 01/07/2012 i.e amendment brought to Section 55A, assessee has determined Income from capital gain based upon Registered Valuer report and Assessing Officer has claimed that fair market value of land as on 01st April 1981 was lower than such valuer report, Assessing Officer was not justified i…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. ACC Limited v. Addl. CIT -LTU (Formerly known as The Associated Cement 29th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. CIT - LTU-1 v. M/s. ACC Limited 29th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005…

Acc Ltd ( Formelry Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addll CIT, (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6638/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. ACC Limited v. Addl. CIT -LTU (Formerly known as The Associated Cement 29th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. CIT - LTU-1 v. M/s. ACC Limited 29th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly known as The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…During the course of appellate hearing, Ld. AR has referred various decisions of co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ITAT wherein identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl 367 ITR 238 has also held as under: “15. Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…During the course of appellate hearing, Ld. AR has referred various decisions of co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ITAT wherein identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl 367 ITR 238 has also held as under: “15. Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the…

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…During the course of appellate hearing, Ld. AR has referred various decisions of co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ITAT wherein identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl 367 ITR 238 has also held as under: “15. Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the…

Shri Arvindbhai Popatlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(4), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 374/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: 02/06/2022

Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 55A

…1981. Therefore the AO was bound to accept the value determined by the registered valuer as on 1st April 1981. In this regard, the learned AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl reported in 367 ITR 238. ITA No. 374/Ahd/2016 [Shri Arvindbhai Popatlal Patel Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 6 - The learned AR also drew attention on pages 120 to 135 where the valuation report was placed. 7.2 On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, and the perused the materials avail…

Machindra L. Bodke, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 9(3), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2829/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2829/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Machindra L. Bodke, A/P Gahunje, Maval Pune- 410 506. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aobpb9433R बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 9(3), Pune Assessee By : Dr. Vardhaman L. Jain Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Dr. Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55Section 55A

…r provision that the fair market value so claimed “is less than its fair market value” by “is at variance with its fair market value” has come by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012 whereas we are in assessment year 2009-10 only. Case law [2014] 367 ITR 238 (Guj) CIT Vs Gauranginiben S.Shodhan & [2006] 103 TTJ 216 (Pune) Smt. Krishnabai Tingre Vs. ITO holds that the Assessing Officer ought not to ignore a 3 Shri Machindra L. Bodke registered valuer report in identical circumstances by applying the amended statutory provision with retrospective effect. We adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis to…

Meenaben Narendrabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 142/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 143/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Shri Apurva Narendra Patel, Income Tax 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Officer, Anand Chowk, Ward-6(1)(4), Kokhara Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Agcpp7272M 2. 142/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Meenaben Narendrabhai Income Tax Patel, Officer, 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Ward-6(1)(4), Anand Chowk, Kokhara Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No.Aqgpp1762L 3. 144/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Mitesh Narendrabhai Patel, Income Tax 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Officer, Anand Chowk, Kokhara Gam, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No.Aqgpp1777K

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…1981. Therefore the AO was bound to accept the value determined by the registered valuer as on 1st April 1981. In this regard, the learned AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl reported in 367 ITR 238. The learned AR also drew attention on pages 2 to 11 where the valuation report was placed. ITA nos.143/AHD/2019 & 2 others Asstt. Year 2010-11 6 9.2 Besides the above, it was also pointed out that the AO, if not satisfied with the value of the land, can make the reference to the DVO under the provisions of section 55A of the Act but he cannot…

Mukeshbhai Ramubhai Ahir, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3) (3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1652/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mukeshbhai Ramubhai Ahir Ito, Ward-1(3)(3), 49,-B, Ambanagar, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs B/H Kapadia Health Club, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Bhatar, Surat-395002. Gate, Surat. Pan : Aqqpa1546H Applicant Respondent

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 54B

…hbhai Ramubhai Ahir (AY 2012-13) section is not applicable for the AY under consideration. Therefore, the reference made by AO is not valid. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Gauranginiben S. Sodhan [367 ITR 238 (Guj.)] held that the amended provision in section 55A is not applicable to the transaction prior to 01.07.2012. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Pooja Prints [360 ITR 697 (Bom.)] has held that the Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amended section of 55A of the Act. 6. The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that on…

Shri Virendra Natwarlal Jariwala, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Virendra Natwarlal Jariwala The Dy. Commissioner Of D-10/11, Aenav Complex-C, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Vs City Light Road, Surat. Surat-495003. Pan : Aachj7085E Applicant Respondent Shri Sudhir Natwarlal Jariwala Ito, Ward-3(1)(5), (Huf), 6/2578, Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Rampura, Surat-495003. Majuragate, Surat. Pan : Aaehs3103G Applicant Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 55A

…in ITA No.821/AHD/2016 dated 27.11.2020, wherein on transaction of sale of land prior to 01.07.2012, the assessee in that case was allowed similar relief by the Tribunal, by following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Gauranginiben S Sodhan (367 ITR 238 Guj) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pooja Prints 360 ITR 697 (Bom). The relevant part of decision of Tribunal in Ranchodbhai C. Patel vs. ITO (supra) is extracted below; “9.We have considered the rival contention of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that on similar set of fact, the coordina…

Smt.Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(7), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.06/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Vs The Income Tax Officer, A/42, Padariya Mohallo, Adajan . Ward-1(3)(7), Surat. Gam, Surat. [Pan: Biypp 0688 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 55A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.06/SRT/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Vs The Income Tax Officer, A/42, Padariya Mohallo, Adajan . Ward-1(3)(7), Surat. Gam, Surat. [PAN: BIYPP 0688 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee by Shri Manish Shah – AR राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue by Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing: 19.01.2021 उ"घोषण…

Shri Dilipbhai U.Udani, Rajkot, Jamnagar vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.N. Maurya, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 16ASection 23Section 24Section 263Section 34ASection 35Section 37Section 45Section 55A

…es not arise. I.T.A No. 251/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 4 Shri Dilipbhai J. Udani vs. ACIT-III 10. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Gauranging S. Sodhan Indl. Reported in 367 ITR 238 wherein it was held as under: 15. Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with…

Shri Amitabha Chaudhuri, Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Durgapur (West Bental), Durgapur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2041/KOL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2041/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02) Shri Amitabha Chaudhuri Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Durgapur 2D-401, “Avishikta 1”, 369/1, Purbachal Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpc1857E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 01/01/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…e it clear that the legislative amendment inserting the clinching statutory expression “is at variance with its fair market value” vide Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 is applicable with prospective effect only. Hon’ble Gujarat high court’s decision (2014) 367 ITR 238 (Guj) Gauranginiben S. Shodhan holds that the Assessing Officer could proceed only under section 55A(a) is a case involving registered valuer’s report and not under any other clause. The said unamended clause; as indicated hereinabove, would come into play in the relevant previous year. We thus conclude in these facts and circumstances that the l…

CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl

What is CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(12), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Cawas Darasha Karaka, Ahmedabad

Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

Acc Ltd ( Formelry Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addll CIT, (Ltu), Mumbai

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

Shri Arvindbhai Popatlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(4), Ahmedabad

Machindra L. Bodke, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 9(3), Pune

Meenaben Narendrabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

Mukeshbhai Ramubhai Ahir, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3) (3), Surat

Shri Virendra Natwarlal Jariwala, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(3), Surat

Smt.Kaushikaben Nimeshbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(7), Surat

Shri Dilipbhai U.Udani, Rajkot, Jamnagar vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Rajkot-Gujarat

Shri Amitabha Chaudhuri, Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Durgapur (West Bental), Durgapur