“jantri value”

Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

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

Laljibhai Parshottambhai Gaudani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahemdabad

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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

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

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-:-

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

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

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

totality of circumstances, including the nature of the land, the evidence produced, and the fact that the assessee has paid more than the jantri value, we hold that the addition of Rs.18,10,640/- made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act is unwarranted and unjustified. 7. 1. Accordingly

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

Sh. Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

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

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

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

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

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