“jantri value”

Capital GainsSection 50CSection 50C92 judgments

THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5274/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm\Nand\Nms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am\N\Nita No.5274/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\Nm/S. The Bombay Dyeing And\Nmanufacturing Company Limited,\Nneville House, Jn Heredia Marg,\Nballard Estate,\Nmumbai - 400 001\Npan: Aaact2328K\Nvs.\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre,\Ndelhi (Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1),\Nmumbai - 400001\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Yogesh Thar, A.R.\Nms. Sukanya Jairam, A.R &\Nshri Saurabh Surana, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nshri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N22.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N18.03.2025\Norder\Nper Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:\Nthis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned\Ncommissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. Cit(A)' For Short], National Faceless\Nappeal Centre (‘Nfac' For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'),\Npertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' For Short) 2018-19.\N2.\Nthe Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N“1. Ground No. 1: Disallowance Of Rs. 4,65,28,171/- Under Section 14A Of The\Nact:\N1.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 43C

consideration of Rs.5,01,01,516/-\nand another property for a consideration of Rs.4,84,61,972/- for which the State\nGovernment Authority determined jantri value at Rs.5,56,87,000/- and Rs.5,64,28,500/-\nrespectively. The details of the said transactions are tabulated herein under for reference

KAMLESHBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 814/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 50C

derived by the assessee on the sale of land. It was found that the stamp duty paid on the sale of land was at jantri value of Rs. 1.37 crores. Accordingly, the AO had taken the sale consideration of land at Rs.1.37 crores and worked out STCG of Rs.1 ... gain, the AO had rightly invoked the provision of section 50C of the Act. As regards working out the sale consideration by adopting the jantri value as on date of agreement, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the matter may be set aside to the AO for this purpose with

RUPAL NIRAV SHAH,SURAT vs. 1 (3), SURAT

ITA 808/SRT/2025[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

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

Section 250

Rs.19,21,024/- made by the AO in applying the provision of 50C, without appreciating the facts that the document value and the jantri value are the same and is duly accepted by the competent authority. Rupal Nirav Shah Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-2019 - 2– 2. That

KISHOR K KASTA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 892/RJT/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 892/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Kishor K. Kasta Vs. Ito Ward-2(4), R. K. Jetty, Plot Vistar, Okha Porbandar - 361350 Porbandar (Guj) – 361350 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awbpk9704A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL

LALJIBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI GAUDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHEMDABAD

ITA 1238/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 27(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(5)Section 53A

Assessing Officer had subsequently received an information that assessee had sold a land on 08.07.2011 for consideration of Rs.14,59,860/-, the Jantri value of which was Rs.59,90,320/-. According to the Assessing Officer the difference of Rs. 45,30,460/- was liable to tax under the provision ... should be considered in accordance with the proviso to section 50C(1) of Act. He further submitted that the assessee had also disputed the Jantri value as adopted by the assessee which was in excess of fair market value of the property as on date of transfer. 7. Per contra

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 411 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHARANAM REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

assessee's claim of voluntary payment of higher stamp duty (e.g., Rs.4,17,000/- used vs. Rs.3,67,500/-calculated) on purported lesser Jantri value, and the stamp valuation authority's underestimation of the saleable area (299.86 sq. mtrs. vs. actual 555.81 sq. mtrs.), which justified the invocation of sections

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHARANAM REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1838/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

RUPAL DEVANG NAIK ,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1058/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 48Section 50C

absence of valuation report of DVO, the\nAO was not justified in making addition on the basis of Jantri value of property.\nThe Ld. AR requested to delete the addition made by the AO of Rs.11,76,020/-.\n7. The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders

NITABEN CHANDULAL PATEL ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1763/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarnitaben Chandulal Patel Income Tax Officer, Vs. A-6, Chhaya Flats, Nr. Ward 5(3)(2), Khawadwala Society, Ahmedabad Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad-380061. [Pan: Afcpp1692N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R. Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R

Section 147Section 50C

subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.24,00,510/- as 1/8th share of the Jantri Value u/s 50C under the head LTCG. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

NITABAHEN DINESHBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1009/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54B

property at Rs.526/-per sq. mtr. and the Assessing Officer had accepted the same without application of mind. He submitted that when the jantri value of the property revised in the year 2006 was Rs.220/- per sq. mtr. only, there was no basis to adopt the land value

ISHWARBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI ,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 3(3)(5) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nShri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: \nShri C Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ \"SMC\", अहमदाबाद ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD\nBEFORE

SHRI CHHAGANBHAI MULJIBHAI PATOLIYA,JETPUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (3) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.477/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Chhaganbhai Muljibhai Patoliya, Vs The Ito Ward 1(2)(3), Radhe Park, Shreeji School, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course, . Amarnagar Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001 Jetpur (Gujarat) - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ddrpp2365A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 50Section 50C

fair market value worked out at Rs. 13,87,414/-. Therefore, as per section 50C of the I.T. Act, the difference between market value (Jantri Value) and sale deed consideration comes to the Rs. 12,45,081/- (13,87,4141,42,333), require to be added to the total income ... assessee worked out to Rs. 13,87,414/-. Therefore, as per section 50C of the I.T. Act, the difference between market value (Jantri Value) and sale deed consideration comes to the Rs. 12,45,081/-(13,87,414-1,42,333) which was added to the total income

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the interests of justice

ITA 1005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nShri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

fair\nmarket value of the property before making any addition. From the facts placed\non record, we observe that the assessee submitted that the Jantri value has been\ncalculated at a higher rate and the revised Jantri rates do not apply to the\nassessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer ... Assessing Officer erred in adopting\nthe stamp duty valuation straightaway without referring the matter to the DVO\ndespite the assessee having objected to the jantri value as being excessive.\nTherefore in the interests of substantial justice, the matter needs to be\nreconsidered afresh after obtaining a valuation report from

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)Section 54Section 80C

verification of the sale deed, the AO observed that stamp duty of Rs.14,72,900/- had been paid on the transaction, and as per jantri value, the fair market value of the property worked out to Rs.3,00,58,895/-, as against the consideration of Rs.90,00,000/- shown ... name, and hence, as per the plain reading of section 54, the claim was not admissible. 2.5 On assessee’s objection to adoption of jantri value, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 50C(2). The Valuation Officer determined the value of the property at Rs.1

SHRI RAVI PARSOTAMBHAI ASANANI,VILLAGE JETPUR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 434/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 434/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Jetpur – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Pan/Gir No.: Amnpa7007Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld

Section 147

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट"ायपीठ,राजकोट। राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC

SHRI DIPAKKUMAR PARSOTAMDAS ASANANI,VILLAGE JETPUR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 435/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 435/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani Asanani Ito, Nfac, Delhi Prop. Jay Jalaram Enterprise, M. G. , M. G. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 Pan : Aecpa2955G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. D. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld

Section 147Section 148

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट"ायपीठ,राजकोट। आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC

JITESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL NAGADA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

made by Ld. A.O. of Rs. 8,34,694/- u/s. 56(vii)(b)(ii) on account of alleged difference between actual purchase price and Jantri Value without establishing that purchase is made by appellant by payment of extra money neither by referring the same to valuation officer for evaluation ... cost of improvement for want of necessary supporting documents. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value of assets which is higher than actual sale price without considering the fact that the land is not a capital asset. Hence, provisions

KANTABEN RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

DHARA DEVELOPERS,SHREE VISHNUDHARA HOMES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2)(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE, VEJALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1833/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 92C

failed to consider the fact that in the instant case the appellant has computed the arms length price on the basis of jantri value available with the appellant at the time of entering into the transaction. It is further submitted that additionally for the purpose of comparing the said transaction ... into with an unrelated party. CIT(A) has also not considered the above submission. The only comparison that can be made is with the jantri value and since the transaction price is decided on the basis of jantri value the assessee has taken the same as the arms length price

BINALBEN PINKESHBHAI NAIK,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

In the result, these three appeals (ITA 1059 & 1060 & 1061/Srt/2025 for\nAY 2012-13) of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 148Section 50C

deduction of indexed cost of acquisition:-\nWithout prejudice to above, it is submitted that assessing officer has erred in\nmaking addition of full Jantri value of Rs. 12,39,000/- without giving\ndeduction of indexed cost of acquisition. The impugned land is an ancestral\nproperty hence, assessing officer ought ... Hence, in\nabsence of the valuation report of DVO, the assessing officer is not justified\nin making addition on the basis of Jantri value of property. Thus, addition\nmade by assessing officer is required to be deleted or reference may kindly\nbe made to DVO for determining the value

Showing 1–20 of 92 · Page 1 of 5