RAMESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

50C of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee drew attention to pages 16 to 16 A of the paper book which is the distance certificated and population certificate issued by “Talati cum mantri” in respect of the impugned land. He further drew attention to page 30 of paper book containing the Google Maps showing the relevant distance

RAMESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

50C of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee drew attention to pages 16 to 16 A of the paper book which is the distance certificated and population certificate issued by “Talati cum mantri” in respect of the impugned land. He further drew attention to page 30 of paper book containing the Google Maps showing the relevant distance

KAMLESHBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

section 50C of the Act. As regards working out the sale consideration by adopting the jantri value as on date of agreement, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the matter may be set aside to the AO for this purpose with suitable direction. Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel Vs. DCIT, AY- 2012-13 6 8. We have considered the rival submissions. From

SHRI ASHOK NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 50C of the I.T. Act shall not be charged in your case. 4. The appellant vide reply dated 26.02.2016 explained the issue in details but AO without properly considering the same, added capital gain of Rs.14,65,000/- towards sale of residential building and Rs.2,51,667/- towards sale of factory buildings. A.Y. 2013-14 Page 2

SHRI HEMANG CHIMANBHAI POKAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. As transpires from the orders of the authorities below, the revisionary powers were exercised by the Ld. PCIT with respect to the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee for the impugned year u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Act on 15.11.2019 and the said order was held to be erroneous causing prejudice to the revenue

SHRI HARAPALSINH B CHUDASAMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2017. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued on 03.11.2017 which was served upon the assessee. The assessee did not file requisite details at that juncture but after issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 30.11.2017, the ld. AR of the assessee subsequently filed

M/S. SHILP GRAVURES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2 different places which not been verified by the authority. Therefore, in our considered view that there is mismatch in the amount of depreciation which needs to be looked into and same needs to be rectified after verification. A.Y. 2015-16 6 10.2 Regarding the additional depreciation of ₹ 62,26,779/-, we find that the assessee before the revenue authority

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

depreciation amounting to Rs.7 Lacs. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 77. The last issue raised by the assessee is general and connected with above grounds. Therefore, the same does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is being dismissed as infructuous. 78. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

depreciation amounting to Rs.7 Lacs. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 77. The last issue raised by the assessee is general and connected with above grounds. Therefore, the same does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is being dismissed as infructuous. 78. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

depreciation amounting to Rs.7 Lacs. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 77. The last issue raised by the assessee is general and connected with above grounds. Therefore, the same does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, the same is being dismissed as infructuous. 78. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Page