“jantri value”

Capital GainsSection 50CSection 50C92 judgments

Judgments citing jantri value

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

ITA 46/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)

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

Maunang Farms Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), (Now ACIT., Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 110/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

consideration of Rs.9,66,000/- whereas as per provisions of Section 50C of the Act the assessee was required to consider the Market Value (Jantri Value) of Rs.13,09,830/-. From the details filed in Income Tax Return, the Assessing Officer confirmed that the assessee has not considered the Jantri ... Assessing Officer observed that as per Rule of Gujarat State regarding levying of stamp duty on transfer of immovable property against sale, 4.9% of Jantri Value (Fair Market Value as decided for stamp duty) of the property is levied. The property was sold for less sale consideration as compared

Pooja Dipen Joshi, Deesa vs. The ITO, Ward-2 Formaly Ward-4, Palanpur

ITA 856/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

purchased a property jointly with 8 persons. The value of this property shown in the transfer document was Rs.1,35,00,000/- whereas jantri value of the property was Rs.4,03,07,857/-. On the basis of this information, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income ... Registrar in respect to the property purchased by the assessee who had confirmed that though the documentary value of property was Rs.1.35 Crores, the jantri value was Rs.4,03,07,857/-. As the assessee was having 11.11% share in the property, the assessee’s ITA Nos.856 & 696/Ahd/2023 (Pooja Dipen Joshi

Ashokkumar C. Joshi, Deesa vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Palanpur

ITA 696/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

M/S. Sharnam Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S.Sharnam Realities P.Ltd. Pr.Cit-4 411A, Neelkanth Palace B Vs Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Road Satellite 380 015. Pan : Aaics 9152 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Ar & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Prap Yadav, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Prap Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

before the Ld.PCIT reproduced at para 2.2 (xiv) page 6 of his order pointing out therefrom the fact that the assessee had submitted the jantri value of all 27 sale transactions of properties during the year. He drew our attention to the said detail placed at paper book page No.215 ... relation to the properties sold with respect to: • Date of conveyance deed • Dastavej number • Name of purchasers • Sale consideration as per conveyance deed • Jantri value as per stamp duty authority • Stamp duty payable as per stamp duty authority • Stamp duty actually paid by the assessee 4 • Whether sale consideration

Tejabhai Nagjibhai Makwana, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

ITA 1587/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 50CSection 54Section 54BSection 54F

other sellers had sold immovable property for which they received Rs.1,00,00,000/- in cash. Further, the ITO, Mehsana had intimated that the jantri value of land sold was determined at Rs.3,73,32,000/–. The Assessing Officer was at the view that the said land is a capital ... consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/–. The agricultural land had been converted into non- agricultural land by the assessee on 15.10.2011 and the Jantri value of the land was Rs.3,73,32,000/– and the share of the assessee was one-third of the said property. During the course

M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Aravalli vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 103/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69

initiated by the AO on account of difference between purchase consideration shown by the assessee vis- a-vis Jantri value of the property under the stamp valuation. As such, there was no issue about the source of investment in the impugned property before the AO in the proceedings

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. -4, Surat vs. Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 223/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 63 & 64/Srt/2023 (Ay: 2016-17 & 2019-20) (Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee

Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 292CSection 69B

alleged on IT(SS)A No. 63 & 64/Srt/2023 & ITA 223/Srt/2023 DCIT Vs Shree Kuberji Textile Deck money payment or if any addition to Jantri value. The assessee made any unexplained investment. Thus, in view of the aforesaid additional observation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding

M/S. Patel Copper Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (1) (4), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 261/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. M/S. Patel Copper Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, A-76, Aashopalav Bunglows, Ward 2(1)(4), Nr. Satya Sai Hospital, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aagcp 6173 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 56(2)(viib)

shares, was purchased during the current year itself. He also noted the fact that the land was purchased for Rs.8,74,460/- and its jantri value was Rs.7,35,000/- @ Rs.642/- per square meter, while the valuer had valued it at Rs.87,62,000/- estimating the value of land ... market value of the same lands during the same year is stated to be Rs.87,62,000/-. Further, the said valuation report states the jantri value of the property at Rs.7,35,000/- @ Rs.642/- per square metre whereas the valuer has estimated the value of the land at Rs.8

Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C(2)

leviable and addition thereof is liable to be deleted. The assessee also objected about the valuation made by the stamp valuation authorities. The jantri value of agriculture land was Rs. 6,00/- per square meter and the assessee executed the sale deed @ Rs. 850/- per square meter. As the buyer ... industrial society and wanted to use land for industrial purpose, therefore, the stamp valuation authorities charged at the higher rate of jantri value. The assessee furnished the details of the prevailing rate of jantri value. The assessee also submitted that one of the seller of similar land Govindbhai Devrajbhai

Shri Bhadresh Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56

property as per stamp duty valuation authority was coming to Rs. 1,13,38,776/- and the share of the appellant as per jantri value was coming to Rs.28,34,694/-. Thus, as per the AO the appellant in his case. has shown the sale consideration of the land less

M/S. Lado Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Bela (Rangpar), Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

that Revision proceedings under Section 263 were justified as Assessing Officer accepted assessee's claim of considering sale consideration as per agreement, instead of jantri value on which stamp duty was collected as sale consideration under Section 50C for computation of capital gains, which was clearly unsustainable

Shri Chhitubhi Jagubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.224/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chhitubhai Jagubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kanbi Faliya, At & Po Kholwad, 1(2)(1), Surat, Aaykar Vs Taluka, Kamrej, Surat-394109 Bhavan, Room No.121, 1St Pan No. Brlpp 7388 D Floor, Nr. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C

appellant’s case on the basis of actual sale deed executed, where value considered in that sale deeds were less than Circle Rate (Jantri Value), and all that places are better located than appellants land, proved with pictures and Google maps. 4. In view of all these and other grounds

ITO, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat vs. Maheshchand G. Patel (HUF), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Maheshchandra G. Patel (Huf), Ward-2(2)(3), 22, Vrajbhumi, Tirumala Society, In Vs. Surat. Front Of Balaji Nagar, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Aajhm 2315 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 292C

Patel (HUF) determined by the revenue authority. The Jantri rate was determined at Rs.298/- per square meter. The value of land as per Jantri value was arrived at Rs. 38,95,700/- which is less than the value declared in the registered sale deed at Rs. 39,60,000/- From

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.297/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Income-Tax, Circle-2, Surat, Vs. K-801, River View Heights, Room No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pedar Road, Mota Varachha, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394101 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb 0820 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

fact that the Valuation Report of the DVO was mere estimates on the basis of sale instances of the locality as per their Jantri Value without taking into consideration the incriminating and corroborative evidences in respect of the very land in question, found and seized during the course of search

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S Dianco, Mumbai

ITA 222/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/S Dianco, Central Circle-4, C-210, Prasad Chambers, Opera Vs. Surat. House, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaafd 2501 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

adopted by the AO for making the addition of Rs.85,72,204/- as inappropriate and on the other hand, taking the jantri value of Rs. 11,036/- per Sq. Ft. for giving relief for addition made of Rs.2,61,45,515/-. (v) It is, therefore, prayed that the order

Pankajbhai Hathibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Surat

ITA 589/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.589/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Pankajbhai Hathibhai Patel Income Tax Officer, 112, Sangath Mall 1, Ward-6(3), Surat Vs. Opp. Govt. Engineering College, Motera, Ahmedabad-380005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpp 0099 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 48Section 50CSection 54Section 54E

Since then the report of DVO dated 30.09.2016 is received and the DVO has valued it at same value as the SVA (jantri value). (Ref. Remand Report of AO dated04.01.2017. Hence, the appellant will not get any relief on this account, even though the ground has been allowed

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat vs. Bhikhabhai Keshubhai Dhameliya, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Bhikhabhai Keshubhai Dhameliya, Surat. Jay Gangeshwar Society, Varachha, Dist – Surat, 395010. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaupd7552N Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca 31/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Meter is to be taken away by the local Urban authority for common infrastructure development of TP scheme no. 45. Market and jantry value of final plot no. 16 having area of 7171 Sq. Meter is Rs. 44818750 (7171*6250). This Surat Development Authority documents regarding TP scheme ... Rs.53779500 as per your show cause notice dated 18.12.2018. agasint this, we have already shown total amount of Rs.49524975 which is more than jantry value of Rs.44848750 for Final Plot no.16. We have paid stamp duty Bhikhabhai K. Dhameliya on total area of 11951 for certain technical reason

Bharatkumar L. Tejani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

ITA 540/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) I.T.O., Shri Bharatkumar Laljibhai Tejani, Ward-3(3)(1), 286, Vithal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Near Hira Baugh Circle, Varacha Road, Surat-395006. Pan: Ahbpt 5143 P Appellant Respondednt Shri Bharatkumar Laljibhai I.T.O., Tejani, Ward-3(3)(1), Vs. 286, Vithal Nagar Society, Surat. Near Hira Baugh, Varacha Road, Surat-395006. Pan: Ahbpt 5143 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54B

without giving any finding on the issue and also without considering the fact that the jantri value obtained by assessing officer is that of non-agricultural land and not of agricultural land. 2. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income

ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat vs. Bharatkumar Laljibhai Tejani, Surat

ITA 488/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 May 2023AY 2014-15

Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 54B