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

gains arising therefrom were duly invested in accordance with the provisions of sections 54B and 54F of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction under section 54B on account of purchase of two agricultural lands and deduction under section 54F on account of purchase of a residential plot, and after such investments, no taxable capital

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 54B(1) of the Act. It is apparently the case of the assessee that the embargo placed under s 54B(2) is that the un- utilized capital gain

BHOGILAL BAHILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT -1, VADOADAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 475/2 Sagar Faliya Vadodara. At & Post Bhayali Vadodara 391 410. Pan : Bkkpp 3136 R

capital gains under section 54B of the Act is • capital gain ought to be earned on transfer of land which

AMARTBHAI MANDANBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 54B of the Act and the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the capital gain

PRAVINSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains tax, the CIT(Appeals) held that the addition under section 68 of the Act was not justified and directed deletion of the addition of ₹36,00,000/-. This ground was allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal was partly allowed, with relief granted in respect of deductions under sections 54B

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NITINBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-2017 Ito, Ward-4(2)(3) Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel Ahmedabad. Vs. Room No.303, 3Rd Floor Aaykar Bhavan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaspp 5802 F (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025

section 54B of the Act in respect of the long-term capital gains. In the case of the co-owner

RAMSINHJI MERAJI VANZARA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

54B(1). 4. The learned CIT(A) and AO have grossly erred in bringing to tax the alleged capital gains on sale of rural agricultural land, which is not a "capital asset" within the meaning of Section

BHANUBHAI MANILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain at Rs. 2,70,53,751. Penalty proceedings under section 270A(1) for underreporting of income were also initiated. 4. In appeal before us CIT(Appeals), he noted that the only addition made by the Assessing Officer was in respect of the deduction of Rs. 2,74,00,000/- claimed under section 54B

SMT. NITIN R SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

capital I.T.A No. 1591/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Shri Nitin R Shah vs. DCIT gains', the same should be considered accordingly for the purpose of deduction u/s 54B, however, the same is not at all alluded to by the said section

DCIT, CIR, 4(2), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

capital gain and also claim deduction under section 54B of the Act by observing as follows: “……5.3 The facts of the case

DCIT, CIR.4(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LALITBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

capital gain and also claim deduction under section 54B of the Act by observing as follows: “……5.3 The facts of the case

LATE SMT. RAMILABEN HARSHADRAI PATEL(THROUGH L/H DEVRAJ H.PATEL),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVRAJ HARSHADRAY PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

DEVRAJ HARSHADRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

USHABEN MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

gain arising out of sale of immovable property under Section 54B of IT Act, 1961. 6. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in disallowing exemption under Section 54F amounting to Rs.35,63,534/- by making addition on account of long-term capital

LATE SHRI CHHATRASINH J.VAGHELA THRU L/H KAMLABEN C.VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallate Shri Chhatrasingh J. Vs. Vaghela, Income-Tax Officer, Through L/H Kamlaben C. Ward-1, Vaghela, At & Post : Sargasan, Gandhinagar Sargasan, Gandhinagar-382421 [Pan : Atnpv 4710 C]

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by computing Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and denying deduction u/s 54B

REJESHRI OMPRAKASH MALVIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-4(1)(3)), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

54B, 54C, 54D 54G & 54GA of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,27,21,724/- on sale of land at Ratanpur and claimed the entire capital gain as exempt under Section

RAMNIKLAL R BHADRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

capital gain. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. A.O. in levying interest u/s.234A/B/C of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. A.O. in initiating penalty u/s.271

ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gains. The assessment was accordingly completed assessing the total income ITA Nos. 1961 & 1960/Ahd/2025 Rohitkumar Chinubhai Modi & Saurabhbhai Rohitbhai Modi vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2009-10 - 6– at Rs.3,66,86,678/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 9. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner