← All Phrases

“jantri value”

Capital GainsSection 50CSection 50C92 judgments

Judgments citing jantri value

Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

ITA 1060/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1059/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Anilbhai Desai 87, Brahman Faliya, Udhna Kharwasa Road, Dindoli, Surat – 394210 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gcbpd0303J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1060/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward 87, Brahman Faliyu, Dindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210 Vs. 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayspd 0711F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1061/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, 132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi Navsari Navsari - 396445 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aftpn 6207 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr : 05/08/2025 : 18/08/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Anilbhai Desai, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(1), Surat

ITA 1059/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1059/Srt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Anilbhai Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 87, Brahman Faliya, Udhna Kharwasa Road, Dindoli, Surat – 394210 2(3)(1), Surat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gcbpd0303J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1060/Srt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Dakshaben Ajitbhai Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 87, Brahman Faliyu, 2(3)(1), Surat Dindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayspd 0711F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1061/Srt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Binalben Pinkeshbhai Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, 132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi Navsari Navsari - 396445 स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aftpn 6207 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. Dr : 05/08/2025 : 18/08/2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Rajeshbhai Bhagwandas Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (3) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

ITA 985/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

assessee had entered into a high-value transaction involving sale of immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. However, 3 the jantri value (i.e., the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for stamp duty purposes) for the said transaction was Rs.10,04,081/-, resulting ... notice was issued to the assessee requiring him to explain why the difference of Rs.2,04,081/- between the declared sale consideration and the jantri value should not be added under section 50C. In the absence of any response, the AO proceeded to invoke section 50C and added the differential

Rameshkumar G. Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(5) Present Jurisdiction ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 397/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 274

located at Land, Block No. 5361, Survey No. 313, Moje: Sama, District: Vadodara, for a sale consideration of Rs. 66,00,000/-. However, the jantri value of the said property as on 01.06.2016 was stated to be Rs. 92,62,433/-. Based on this information, the AO issued a show

DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Ekkta Devlopers, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals are dismissed

ITA 577/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.576 & 577/Srt/2024 (Ays:2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. M/S Ekkta Developers, Central Circle – 4, B-702, Business Point, S. V. Road, Surat Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefe5374R (Appellant) (Respondent) Co Nos.38 & 37/Srt/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.576 & 577/Srt/2024) (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S Ekkta Developers, Vs. Dcit, B-702, Business Point, S. V. Road, Central Circle – 4, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400058 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2025

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69BSection 69C

purchased the land at FMV whereas the addition made by the AO was at an abnormally high cost, i.e., 9 times more than the Jantri value. In view of these facts and in absence of any supporting evidence, he deleted the addition made ... Developers, M/s New Supreme Developers and M/s Aadeshwar Enterprises. The CIT(A) has also held that the appellant had purchased the impugned land at Jantri value whereas the amount added by the appellant was almost 9 times the Jantri rate, which is not feasible. The findings

DCIT, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Ekkta Devlopers, Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 576/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Buayananda Prusethberar Adler S/Ita Nos.576 & 577/Srt/2024 (Ays:2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69BSection 69C

purchased the land at FMV whereas the addition made by the AO was at an abnormally high cost, i.e., 9 times more than the Jantri value. In view of these facts and in absence of any supporting evidence, he deleted the addition made ... Developers, M/s New Supreme Developers and M/s Aadeshwar Enterprises. The CIT(A) has also held that the appellant had purchased the impugned land at Jantri value whereas the amount added by the appellant was almost 9 times the Jantri rate, which is not feasible. The findings

Shah Rakesh Bhikhabhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

find that the Assessing Officer, vide letter dated 9th December 2013, did state, in rather general terms, that where the stamp duty valuation (i.e jantri value) is different from sale consideration, the assessee has to state whether the stamp duty valuation was adopted as sale consideration. There was neither ... index copy dated 3rd June 2011 (he after the date of sale deed) clearly shows the said land as an agricultural land and that "jantri value of said agricultural land is Rs Rakesh Bhikhabhai(HUF) vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 15– 4,900 per sqmtr which was clearly mentioned

Kamleshbhai Baldevbhai Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 197/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jigensh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 80C

assessee ought to have disclosed the capital gain in return of income by I.T.A No. 197/Ahd/2025 Kamleshbhai Baldevbhai Patel, A.Y. 2013-14 considering jantri value of the sold property. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13,54,794/- being 7.142% share ... However assessee and co- owners has sold the land and therefore when the land is sold more than the jantry value, provisions of section 50C will not be applicable. I.T.A No. 197/Ahd/2025 Kamleshbhai Baldevbhai Patel, A.Y. 2013-14 8. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order

Shivprakash Ramcharan Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 511/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Adjournment Application filedFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Assessing Officer received information that the assessee sold immoveable property of Rs. 30,09,925/- on 15-09-2011. However, the jantri value of the property or the stamp value of the property is Rs. 41,20,925/- and the assessee paid the stamp duty

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Shri Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot

ITA 724/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven units sold to the members of Sonwani family in FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, total sale consideration realized

DCIT, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Shri Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot

ITA 723/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven units sold to the members of Sonwani family in FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, total sale consideration realized

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle -2, Rajkot.

ITA 581/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven units sold to the members of Sonwani family in FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, total sale consideration realized

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle -2, Rajkot

ITA 547/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D.M Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven units sold to the members of Sonwani family in FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, total sale consideration realized

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 546/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven units sold to the members of Sonwani family in FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, total sale consideration realized

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 545/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven units sold to the members of Sonwani family in FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, total sale consideration realized

Aamnaben Gafar Madkiya, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward - 2(10), Jamnagar

ITA 761/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.761/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Amana Gafar Madakiya Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar, Ghela Patel Delo, Head Post Aaykar Bhawan, Nr Subhas Office, Ghachiwad, Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Jamnagar-361001 Highway, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bylpm2878L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per A. L. Saini, Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 07.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Dated 30/03/2022, U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 55A

sale consideration of Rs.2,09,00,000/-. Where stamp duty of Rs.35,70,000/- is paid. In the case, the market value or the Jantri value of the said property as determined

Hasmukhbhai Mangabhai Ahir, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 1095/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1095/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukhbhai Mangabhai Ahir, Vs. The Ito, Ahir Faliyu, At & Post – Palsana, Taluka Ward –2, - Palsana, Surat – 394317 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Brppa3017A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 50C

making an ITA No.1095/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Hasmukhbhai Mangabhai Ahir addition of Rs. 8,95,900/- u/s. 50C of the Act on account of difference in Jantri value as per Stamp Duty Valuation authority and the value shown in the sale deed. 4. It is prayed that the addition made by the assessing

Shri Ramniklal Hirji Patel, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2, Bhuj, Bhuj-Kutch

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

ITA 105/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 253(5)Section 50C

reopening mentioned under: “As per information assessee has sold the property worth register value of Rs. 6,50,000/- as against market value/ Jantri value of Rs. 13,08,200/-. Accordingly, assessee offered fewer amount of Rs. 6,58,200/- (Rs. 13,08,200/- less

Niranjan Bhaichand Vora, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot

ITA 154/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.154/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybridhearing) Niranjan Bhaichand Vora. Vs. The Ito,Ward-1(2)(4), 402-Madhav Vrund Apartment, Rajkot. Opp. New Collector Office, Shroff Road, Rajkot-360001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaupv5497J (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 53A

declared by the assesses in the sale deed 2 | P a g e NIRANJAN BHAICHAND VORA was on lower side as compared to the Jantri value of the property sold. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 22-03-2016,was issued and dispatched by RPAD on the same ... Jamnagar, vide sale deed No. 95/2012 dated 05.01.2012, for a consideration of Rs. 9,75,000/-, as against Fair Market Value, that is, Jantri value of Rs. 1,14,34,660/-. As per the provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961, in case the consideration mentioned in sale

Denish Khodidas Patel, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Denish Khodidas Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Raag Mahavir Society, Street Rajkot No.2, Nirmala Convent School Road, Rajkot – 360005, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agipp1382Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 147Section 263Section 50C

total sale consideration ( 5% of 128- ITA.356/RJT/2024 – A.Y. 2016-17 Shri Denish Khodidas Patel vs. PCIT Rs.3,50,00,000). However, as per the Jantri value of stamp duty valuation authority, the fair market value of the said property comes to Rs.3,92,06,122/- and the assessee’s share ... your share: Rs. 17,50,000/- @5%) and the stamp duty has been paid thereon. However, as per the jantri value of stamp duty valuation authority, the fair market value of the said property comes to Rs. 3,92,06,122/- (Your share: Rs. 19,62,306/- @5% share