SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1,125 per sq.yd 4,58,74,125/- Rs.58,74,125/- received on 05.03.05. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 Page-49: These are agreement dated 22.01.05 on plain paper for the block no.73 situated at Bopal admeasuring to 10,000 sq.yd. at the rate of Rs.33

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1,125 per sq.yd 4,58,74,125/- Rs.58,74,125/- received on 05.03.05. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 Page-49: These are agreement dated 22.01.05 on plain paper for the block no.73 situated at Bopal admeasuring to 10,000 sq.yd. at the rate of Rs.33

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1,125 per sq.yd 4,58,74,125/- Rs.58,74,125/- received on 05.03.05. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 Page-49: These are agreement dated 22.01.05 on plain paper for the block no.73 situated at Bopal admeasuring to 10,000 sq.yd. at the rate of Rs.33

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1,125 per sq.yd 4,58,74,125/- Rs.58,74,125/- received on 05.03.05. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 Page-49: These are agreement dated 22.01.05 on plain paper for the block no.73 situated at Bopal admeasuring to 10,000 sq.yd. at the rate of Rs.33

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1,125 per sq.yd 4,58,74,125/- Rs.58,74,125/- received on 05.03.05. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 Page-49: These are agreement dated 22.01.05 on plain paper for the block no.73 situated at Bopal admeasuring to 10,000 sq.yd. at the rate of Rs.33

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1,125 per sq.yd 4,58,74,125/- Rs.58,74,125/- received on 05.03.05. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 Page-49: These are agreement dated 22.01.05 on plain paper for the block no.73 situated at Bopal admeasuring to 10,000 sq.yd. at the rate of Rs.33

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1,125 per sq.yd 4,58,74,125/- Rs.58,74,125/- received on 05.03.05. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 Page-49: These are agreement dated 22.01.05 on plain paper for the block no.73 situated at Bopal admeasuring to 10,000 sq.yd. at the rate of Rs.33

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1,125 per sq.yd 4,58,74,125/- Rs.58,74,125/- received on 05.03.05. ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 Page-49: These are agreement dated 22.01.05 on plain paper for the block no.73 situated at Bopal admeasuring to 10,000 sq.yd. at the rate of Rs.33

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

1,23,78,585/-. In view of the above detailed discussion, the AO is directed to tax on protective basis Capital Gains worth Rs.435,59,73,415/-. "Needless to mention here that during the DRP proceedings, the assesse was show caused as to why not Capital Gains should not be worked out in the current year under consideration by using

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

1,23,78,585/-. In view of the above detailed discussion, the AO is directed to tax on protective basis Capital Gains worth Rs.435,59,73,415/-. "Needless to mention here that during the DRP proceedings, the assesse was show caused as to why not Capital Gains should not be worked out in the current year under consideration by using

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gain - Special Provision for computing full value consideration in certain cases - Assessment year 2009-10 -Where value adopted and assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority under subsection (1

RAVINDRABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

1), but what is relevant is the purchase of agricultural land within the time prescribed under section 54B. It was further submitted that since the assessee had filed his return under section 139(4) on 18.03.2016, the investments made up to that date ought to have been considered as eligible for deduction. 8.2. The learned counsel then dealt with

SMT. VARSHABEN VIPULBHAI BHALANI,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 348/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Varshaben Dcit बनाम/ Vipulbhai Bhalani Central Circle – 2, Baroda Vs. 401, Chaitanya Apartment, 7, Laxmi Colony, Urmi Road, Baroda "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahvpb0323K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Ms. Anam Benish, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 10/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 23/11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 09.10.2020 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vadodara Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 348/Ahd/2021 (Smt. Varshaben V. Bhalani Vs. Dcit) A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - 2. This Matter Relates To Levying Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.45,690/-.

1) of Section 50C of the Act cannot automatically to give rise to penalty proceeding. According to him, Section 50C of the Act would indicate that full sale consideration received by the assessee required to be considered for the purposes of computing capital gain

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

capital gain is leviable on such transactions. 7. Explain whether any claim u/s.32(1)(iia) have been made by the company if yes, then complete details and justification for the same. Asstt. Year 2014-15 12 9.10 The above queries raised by the AO has been duly answered by the assessee during the assessment proceedings vide letter dated 24th

LOVY RANKA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Us, But Then, As Is The Settled Legal Position, When A Reference Is Made To The Dvo, The Assessing Officer Has A Duty To “So Far As The Valuation Of The Asset In Question Is Concerned, Proceed To Complete The Assessment In Conformity With The Estimate Of The Valuation Officer”. The Question Then Arises Whether We Can Deal With The Question Of Correctness Of The Dvo’S Report- Particularly When The Assessing Officer Apparently Has No Say In This Regard.

1. 2017, passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14 2. The short grievance of the assessee is that the impugned addition of Rs 12,12,402 in the computation of the capital gains be deleted as fair market value

AMUL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, ANAND

capital gains shall be computed on the basis of such consideration under section 48 of the Income-tax Act. The scope of section 50C was extended w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11 to the transaction which were executed through agreement to sell or power of attorney by inserting the word "assessable" alongwith words "the value so adopted or assessed". Hence, section 50C

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

50C of the Act concerning immovable properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

50C of the Act concerning immovable properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section