“jantri value”

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Deep Infraprojects LLP, Ahmedabad

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1561/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Deep Infraprojects Llp 10Th Floorhouse, Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfd3530J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Dhrunal Bhatt & Shri Gulab Thakor, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Arvind Kumar, Cit. Dr 22/01/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 05.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Purchased A Land Situated At Ambli Road, Ahmedabad During The Year For A Consideration Of Rs.75 Crore, As Per The Executed Sale Deed. In The Course Of Search Conducted At The Residential Premises Of One Shri Divyang Vyas, Certain Documents Were Found, As Per Which It Transpired That Certain On-Money Was Paid In The Purchase Transaction Of This Land. In The Course Of

from the premises of Shri Divyang Vyas. According to Ld. AR, the land was purchased by the assessee at a rate five times of jantri value of the land and, therefore, there was no question of payment of any on-money. He further submitted that the FMV as worked

Bhavnaben Sanjaykumar Mistry, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5) Present ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

consideration towards immovable property is less than the stamp duty value. In the assessee’s case, the consideration value is not less than the Jantri value rate certified

Niket Ravibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarnad Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

sold agricultural lands and offered the consideration for taxation. However the buyer insisted convertion into Non-Agricultural land, thereby the difference in the Jantri value. However when the possession of the properties were given on 04-12-2012, the land was agricultural in nature and converted into Non-Agricultural land

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

action while assessing the same income as assessed in the original order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, while previously alleging difference between Jantri Value taken in original assessment order and as stated and assumed by him for reopening the assessment. 2. The appellant states that the Jantri value assumed

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

action while assessing the same income as assessed in the original order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, while previously alleging difference between Jantri Value taken in original assessment order and as stated and assumed by him for reopening the assessment. 2. The appellant states that the Jantri value assumed

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

action while assessing the same income as assessed in the original order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, while previously alleging difference between Jantri Value taken in original assessment order and as stated and assumed by him for reopening the assessment. 2. The appellant states that the Jantri value assumed

Gujarat Farm Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Anand

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

that the NAV valuation should be done as per book value of assets except for land and building, which should be taken as per jantri value. The assessee had also filed a valuation by adopting the jantri value for land and building. The Ld. CIT(A) neither took ... Gujarat Farm Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs.ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 -6 – cognizance of this valuation nor any comment has been given as to why the jantri value for land and building can’t be considered for computing the FMV of shares as per NAV method. 9. In view of the above

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

purchase of two properties of Dariyapur without considering the submission of the appellant for less value as compared to Jantri Value. 6. He has erred in law and on facts in not considering the factors having bearing on the value of the properties which included tenanted property with litigation pending

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

purchase of two properties of Dariyapur without considering the submission of the appellant for less value as compared to Jantri Value. 6. He has erred in law and on facts in not considering the factors having bearing on the value of the properties which included tenanted property with litigation pending

The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar vs. Shri Vallabhbhai Dhanjibhai Patel, Bhavnagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal On

back his 1/3rd share of Rs.4,21,366/-. However, the Registration Authorities for the Cancellation Deed charged Rs.1,03,78,200/- based upon the JANTRI Value as on 2011, which was paid by the original owners and not the assessee. Therefore, the AO issued show cause notice dated ... wherein assessee was asked to explain why JANTRI value of Rs.7.06 crores being assessee's share should not be considered as undisclosed for payment of capital gain. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that he could not get title cleared in respect of above referred agricultural

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Vitthalbhai Madhavlal Patel, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Stamp Authority Valuation; which was Rs.342.29 lacs at the relevant time. Thus the cost of land purchased is more than 32% higher than the Jantri value. Copy of Jantry Valuation as on 2008 is placed at page 101 of PB. Thus I.T.A Nos. 1247 & 1358/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

Shri Vitthalbhai Madhavlal Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Stamp Authority Valuation; which was Rs.342.29 lacs at the relevant time. Thus the cost of land purchased is more than 32% higher than the Jantri value. Copy of Jantry Valuation as on 2008 is placed at page 101 of PB. Thus I.T.A Nos. 1247 & 1358/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Ketaben Janakbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disputed land, and also agreed with the submission of the assessee to the effect that the valuation done by the Stamp Valuation Authority(SVA) / (Jantri Value)was more than the fair market value and therefore, the matter was referred to the DVO for valuation. The DVO valued the land ... opted for taking sale value of property at Rs.4,98,83,550/- as determined by the Stamp Duty Authorities i.e. Assessing Officer took the Jantri Value of property as sale consideration. Therefore, the Ld. A.O. of the assessee, Kantaben Patel initiated re-assessment proceedings on the basis of findings

Nalinkumar Ratilal Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Assessment Year: 2009-10 Page 4 of 5 Your appellant further like to submit herewith that the LAO ought to have verified the present jantri value or ought to have obtained valuation report from the DVO before passing the assessment order. Instead the LAO seat idle on the submission made ... opportunity to the assessee of being heard and in fact the assessee re quested that the Assessing Officer ought to have verified the present Jantri Value or ought to have obtained valuation report from the DVO which was not done in assessee’s case. Therefore, it will be appropriate

Hemina Sandipkumar Shah, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

assessee made Banakhat on 28.01.2011. In fact, the possession was also given on 28.01.2011 along with part payment received before 01.04.2011. As the Jantri value increased after finalisation of the Banakhat, so the sale consideration cannot increase because Banakjhat already done and possession given at the Jantri valuation cannot ... record. From the perusal of the Banakhat/date of agreement as well as details Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 3 of 3 given for the Jantry value and the stamp value prior to revision in the Jantri value, it appears that the assessee has partly made payment and, therefore, the contention

Shri Dilip Devjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Cirlce-1(2) Now the Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

further submitted that he had offered gain of Rs. 8,87,370/- to tax out of the transactions in the said land. The Jantri Value of the said land was same in the year 2008-09 i.e. Jantri Value of the said land ... assessee had not taken into account the Jantri Value while working of profit/gain on the said land while transferring it to Sri Mansukh N Turakhiya as on 30.04.2008. The Assessing Officer observed that provisions of Section 50C of the Act clearly attracts in assessee’s hand

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cicle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

DCIT Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 4 a. The Government of Maharashtra has prescribed a formula for determination of stamp duty (jantri value) in case where property is to be used for installation of windmill/solar farm. (The copy of said valuation guideline in Marathi language was also submitted ... purpose of stamp duty, effect of Rs.15,00,000/- per hector needs to be removed. To that extent, value on which stamp duty (jantri value) has been worked out is not comparable with the marker value. c. Since assessee has sold "agricultural land", jantri value as applicable to "agricultural rural