DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

section 54F of the Act against the capital gain arising from more than different properties in different assessment years. As per the AO the 1st property

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

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

gain before exemption\nLess: Deduction under Section 54B (Investment in\nagricultural land)\nLess: Deduction under Section 54F (Investment in\nresidential house)\nTotal deductions claimed under Sections 54B and 54F\n(rounded off)\nFinal long-term capital

SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gains and the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. The assessee had computed long- term capital gains

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

gain under Section 54F cannot be extended to the assessee. From a plain reading of Section 54(2) of the Act it is clear that only Section 139 is mentioned in the context that the unutilized portion of the 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 54F of the Act, further erred in making contrary/confusing statements with respect to allowability of exemption directing Id AO to allow deduction in vague manner. 1.2. Your appellant prays that the Order be treated as Bad in Law. 2.00 Denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.01 On the facts and circumstances of your appellant

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

54F of the Act by treating the receipts as income under the head capital gains. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in observing that the transfer of the capital asset is taxable as short term capital gains instead of long term capital gain. 3. The issue in appeal lies a rather narrow compass of interesting

NITIN BHAILALBHAI THAKKAR,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nitin Bhailalbhai Thakkar, The Acit, C/O. Jagdish Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs Circle 1(1)(2), Ramji Mandir Pole, Kothi Road, Baroda Raopura, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Abapt 7939 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. M.M. Garg, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2022

54F of the Act was wrongly claimed by the assessee at Rs.59,18,030/- after taking into consideration the amount of Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.79,18,030/- as against the net Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.59,18,030/- after reducing the exemption of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed under Section

SOBHA DIVYANG JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 Sobha Divyang Joshi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 55, Prathna Vihar Society, Ward 5(2)(3), B/H Manekbaug, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 006 [Pan : Agxpj 9869 R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2020

gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

Capital Gain Scheme. The appellant in A. Y. 2010-11 claimed benefit of Section 54F of Rs.4.05,20,000/-. As the appellant

SHRI ISHWARBHAI HIMMATBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are allowed

capital gain after expiry of three years in the assessment year 2018-19. As per proviso to sub-section (4) of section 54F

SHRI GOVINDBHAI HIMMATBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are allowed

capital gain after expiry of three years in the assessment year 2018-19. As per proviso to sub-section (4) of section 54F

SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital

SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA vs. SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), BARODA vs. SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital

SHRI NANDKISHORE RAMANLAL PARIKH HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 490/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nandkishore Ramanlal Parikh- Ito, Ward-5(2)(3) Huf Vs Ahmedabad. Chitrakut F.P.390 Bh. Shakuntal Complex C.N.Vidyalay Road Ambawadi, Ellisbridge Amedabad 380 006. Pan : Aaghn 0923 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Lalit P. Jain, Sr.Dr

gain account scheme as per section 54F of the Act. Thereafter, she had purchased residential flat on 18.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. This purchase has been made within the prescribed time limit of two years as provided under section 54F(1) of the Act. She claimed that no capital

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

section 54F of the Act. We shall elaborate the same hereunder. 4 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 5. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.3,86,86,482/- from capital gains