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

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

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

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

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

Capital Gain in A.Y. 2011-12 instead of A.Y. 2012-13. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” ITO vs. Ketaben Janakbhai Patel Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case are that a plot of land was purchased jointly

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CAWAS DARASHA KARAKA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT\nMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 499/Ahd/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2013-14)\nIncome-Tax Officer,\nWard-3(3)(12),\nAhmedabad\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nLate Shri Cawas Darasha\nKaraka, Legal Heir M/s.\nCawas Karaka Trust,\n22, Teen Murti Bungalows,\nNr. Devang Bungalows,\nThaltej, Ahmedabad-380054\n[PAN : AGSPK 9616 L]\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by :\nShri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &\nShri Parimalsinh H. Parmar, ARs\nRespondent by:\nAdjournment applica

gain by assessee is in accordance\nwith the Act. Hence, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned\naddition of Rs.4,40,00,000/-.\nProperty was transferred on “01.05.2012\" and “value as at\n01.04.1981 claimed by assessee” was "more" than “FMV as al\n01.04.81\"; Hence. Assessing Officer could not have made\nreference to DVO u/s 55A for ascertaining

BHIKHABHAI KALIDAS PADHIYAR,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the action of AO in reopening the assessment