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

capital gain\ncomputation.\n2. 5. The assessee contended that the land in question was an agricultural\nland and was used for agricultural purposes before its sale. In support of this\nclaim, it was submitted that the land was mentioned as agricultural in the\n7/12 Uttara revenue records, where the assessee was cultivating Jowar. The\nassessee argued that, since the land

THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(7),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI GAUTAMBHAI BABARBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Shri Gautambhai Babarbhai Patel, Ward 3(2)(7), Vs 1, Laxmikunj Society, Isanpur Ahmedabad Vatva Road, Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382 443 Pan : Aknpp 4848 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Talsania, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

gain for the A.Y.2012-13 be calculated accordingly." The contention of the AO is being examined vis-a-vis provision of section 55A, sub-clause (a) reads, ".......Provision of Section 55A: With a view to ascertaining the fair market value (FMV) of a Capital

KANTILAL MANILAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

capital gain by adopting cost of acquisition at Rs.14,87,267/- as on 1.4.1981 on the basis of registered valuer’s report. He made reference under section 55A

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

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

Capital Gain by rejecting the valuation\nreport of a registered valuer without making a mandatory reference to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under section 55A

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

capital gain, and Form 26AS. It was explained that the assessee held only 4% share in the said immovable properties jointly with family members. The assessee did not claim any exemption under section 54 of the Act. 3.3 The Assessing Officer examined the details and, in para 3.3 (para 3.4 in case of Binitaben Patel) of the assessment order, observed

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

capital gain, and Form 26AS. It was explained that the assessee held only 4% share in the said immovable properties jointly with family members. The assessee did not claim any exemption under section 54 of the Act. 3.3 The Assessing Officer examined the details and, in para 3.3 (para 3.4 in case of Binitaben Patel) of the assessment order, observed

SHRI ARVINDBHAI POPATLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

section 55A of the Act which is applicable prospectively. Therefore such amended provisions cannot be applied to the case on hand. Thus we are inclined to reverse the order of the learned CIT-A, and accordingly we direct the AO to work out the capital gain

JAYENDRABHAI KANTILAL PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain tax and found that below taxable limit hence, no original Return of Income was filed. However, in response to 148 notice the assessee filed Return of Income and the Assessing Officer has referred the case for valuation under Section 55A

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have 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 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

section 55A of the Act. In the present case, no such reference was made, nor was any independent valuation obtained by the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO by unilaterally reducing the cost of acquisition to Rs. 60,000/- and recomputing the capital gain

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have 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 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

section 55A of the Act. In the present case, no such reference was made, nor was any independent valuation obtained by the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO by unilaterally reducing the cost of acquisition to Rs. 60,000/- and recomputing the capital gain

SHRI KIRITBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel ......…………......Appellant Flat No.101, Jivabhai Tower, Lad Society Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Acppp 7268 N]

Section 55A of the I.T. Act, which deals with other relevant circumstances in the opinion of the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of capital asset to a valuation officer. SMC-ITA No. 384/Ahd/2016 Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel vs. ITO AY : 2010-11 Page 3 of 4 7.5 Appellant had also raised issue regarding taxability of capital gain

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

55A of the Act in this regard. 4.6. Without prejudice to the above, CIT(A) has erred in treating the amount of INR 40,00,000 under section 69A of the Act and taxing the same at the higher rate of 60%under section 115BBE of the Act without appreciating the fact that the same could be treated as Long

JITENDRA SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-14(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2011-12 Jitendra Shantilal Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3) 2, Ajubhai Park, Ahmedabad. Opp: Panetar Party Plot Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380 059. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 17.10.2018 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In His Appeal As Under: “1. Order Bad In Law: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals - 4 Grossly Erred To Uphold Order Of Assessing Officer Disrespecting Order Of Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court. 2. Order Passed Overlooking Judicial Discipline & Precedents: 2

capital gains, cost of acquisition of the land as on 1.4.1981 was to be arrived at. The assessee got it valued through a registered valuer who valued it at Rs22,66,500/-. The AO however rejected this valuation for reasons stated in the assessment order, and he referred the valuation to the Department’s valuer under section 55A

MEENABEN NARENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 143/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Shri Apurva Narendra Patel, Income Tax 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Officer, Anand Chowk, Ward-6(1)(4), Kokhara Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Agcpp7272M 2. 142/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Meenaben Narendrabhai Income Tax Patel, Officer, 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Ward-6(1)(4), Anand Chowk, Kokhara Gam, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No.Aqgpp1762L 3. 144/Ahd/2019 2010-11 Mitesh Narendrabhai Patel, Income Tax 255, Nathamukhis Bunglow, Officer, Anand Chowk, Kokhara Gam, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No.Aqgpp1777K

Capital Gain Rs.1,52,96,645/- 7.2 The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the valuer in his report for valuing the land in dispute as on 1 April 1981 has adopted the basis of increase in the gold price index as decided by the Reserve Bank

KUM.KULSUM ABDULRAZAK BANGADIWALA,BARODA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, we see no reason to interfere

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1802/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Mohmmad Afaque Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(1) Bangdiwala Baroda. Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Avvpb 8654 P आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2036/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Kum. Kulsum Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(3) Baroda. Bangdiwala Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Aylpb 8030 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

capital gain as the appellant had failed to prove that the construction of new house after the purchase of land at Lakodara was made within three years from the date on which the property was sold or transferred. Thus the ground of appeal no. 2 of the appellant as reproduced in initial paragraph of this appeal order is partly allowed

MOHMMAD AFAQUE ABDULRAZAK BANGDIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),, BARODA

In the result, we see no reason to interfere

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1802/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Mohmmad Afaque Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(1) Bangdiwala Baroda. Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Avvpb 8654 P आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2036/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Kum. Kulsum Abdulrazak Ito, Ward-5(3) Baroda. Bangdiwala Vs J.M. Villa, Killedar Kancha B/H. Mes Girls School Gendigate Baroda 390 001 Pan : Aylpb 8030 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

capital gain as the appellant had failed to prove that the construction of new house after the purchase of land at Lakodara was made within three years from the date on which the property was sold or transferred. Thus the ground of appeal no. 2 of the appellant as reproduced in initial paragraph of this appeal order is partly allowed

SHRI NEERAV SHAILESH PAREKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Gain (LTCG)/loss to the extent of Rs.15,98,578/-. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee purchased 36 shares on 08.06.2001 for a consideration of Rs.2000/- per share and 165 shares purchased on 20.09.2005 for a consideration of Rs.105/- per share. The Assessing Officer observed that the shares are held by the descendent of Late Shri Chamanlal Girdharlal

SMT. DHIRAJBEN PRAVINBHAI PATEL,,NADIAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, NADIAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.902/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Smt. Dhirajben Pravinbhai Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-3 Ramipoura, Dakor Nadiad. Dist. Kheda Nadiad 388 225 Pan : Bgwpp 6338 R "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Shardaben Chimanlal Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2)(5) Kal Bhairav Mandir Baroda. Sevasi Vadodara. Pan : Bobpp 2349 F

section 55A. Whether this amendment can be taken into consideration for this assessment year i.e 2008-09 is concerned. This aspect covered by the decision of Bombay High Court extracted (supra). 11. Respectfully following these two decisions I allow the appeal of assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gain