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

54B(2) and 54F(4) specifically require that the unutilised capital gains should be deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1

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

54B. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital

DARPAN KANUBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 123/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Darpan Kanubhai Shah The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Darpan Travels, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Near Ramji Mandir, Vadodara Madanzampa Road, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Agips 3405 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 22.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “(1) The Learned Cit(Appeal) Is Not Correct In Holding That The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income U/S 148. Consequently The Learned Cit (Appeal) Is Not Correct That The Appeal Is Not Liable To Be Admitted. (Ii) Alternatively Appeal Is Allowed By Set Aside The Order & Matter Referred Back To The Desk Of Hon. Cit For Reconsideration. Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. Ito Ay : 2018-19 2

54B of the Act for investing the capital gains so earned in the purchase of another agricultural land was also rejected by the Assessing Officer and in turn Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee was computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.52,41,028/- and, subjected to tax, adding it to the income of the assessee

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

1) and 143(2), the assessee furnished replies electronically. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold agricultural land situated at Village Khoraj, Taluka Gandhinagar, for substantial consideration, and claimed deduction under section 54B on long-term capital gains

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

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

gains account and the assessee also claimed to have purchased new agricultural land jointly with two other persons on 09.11.2016 for a consideration of 1.98 crores, wherein the assessee’s share in investment was Rs. 69,93,533/-. However, on going through the records, the PCIT observed certain anomalies in the assessee’s claim of deduction under Section 54B

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 and 54F and deletion of the addition

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

MOHIT VIJAYKUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, Ground No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1091/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta The Dcit बनाम/ B-1001, Juhu Trishul, Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gulmohar Cross Road No.6 Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jvpd Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adfpg 7162 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. C. Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2021-22

1)(c) of the Act by your Appellant. (b) Your appellant prays that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. A O may be directed to delete the addition made to the total income. 2. (a) The Ld. CIT (Appeal)/The National Faceless Appeal Centre('NFAC') has erred in confirming addition of ₹. 13,86,000/- as deemed

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, submissions of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered thoroughly. The appellant with other partner, Shri Bharatbhai Patel entered into Banakhat with Vendor, Shri I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT

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, submissions of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered thoroughly. The appellant with other partner, Shri Bharatbhai Patel entered into Banakhat with Vendor, Shri I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT

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 gain arose in that year irrespective of the fact that the consideration in full has been received or not. So even if the said amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- has been received in F.Y. 2012-13, in my considered view, the date of transfer of the original asset will remain 21/01/2010 only. And even if it is conceded

SAURABHBHAI ROHITBHAI 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

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

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

1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of long term capital gain at Rs.40 Lakhs without allowing deduction for Index cost and exemption u/s. 54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant

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

1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of long term capital gain at Rs.40 Lakhs without allowing deduction for Index cost and exemption u/s. 54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant

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

1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of long term capital gain at Rs.40 Lakhs without allowing deduction for Index cost and exemption u/s. 54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant

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

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 gain arising out of purchase of residential property under Section 54F in her son’s name. 7. The CIT(A) has erred on facts