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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain is leviable in his hand. 23. On consideration of the above, we find that the ld.AO has made reference to the details in an incomplete manner. He made reference to the details of block no.73 on page no.49. This detail is being referred with an idea to harbor a belief that rate in the area was prevalent

SATTARBHAI SULEMANBHAI MANSURI,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15 Mr.Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri Ito,Ward-3 Anjumarstrit Narth Gulam Floor Factri Vs. Himatnagar. Sarvoday Soc, Polo Ground Himatnagar Sabarkantha 383 001. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

capital gain under section 50C of the Act as per the order dated 01.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] was confirmed vide assessment order dated 28/03/2016. Facts of the case: 2. The assessee, an individual earning income from salaries, trading in shares and securities, capital gains

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

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

capital gain on account of this transaction in his return of income, and the provisions of section 50C of the Act were

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

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the determination of the value of a capital asset for ITO vs. Ketaben Janakbhai Patel Asst.Year –2012-13 - 5– calculating capital gains

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

capital gain’. The AO had applied the provision of section 50C of the Act, to compute the short-term capital

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

Section 50C of the Act, the value adopted for stamp duty purposes\nmust be taken as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains

AMIT GIRDHARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

capital gain on such transfer has been duly offered to tax in the preceding year. 5. Alternatively and without prejudice, the stamp duty valuation as on the date of agreement to sale shall be adopted as per the first proviso to Section 50C

DILIP MOHANDAS DEVANI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above directions

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gains. After reworking the figures as per the correct application of section 50C of the Act and disallowing the indexed cost of Dilip Mohandas Devani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 5– improvement, and restricting exemption under section 54 of the Act to the extent of the assessee’s own investment, the CIT(A) recalculated the total long-term capital

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 50C\nof the Act were found to be applicable. However, in the original\nassessment, the Assessing Officer computed Short-Term Capital Gain