GUJARAT INFRAPIPES PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

50C of the Act 6,71,29,538/- (vi) Disallowance on account of Excess Depreciation 4,58,137/- Claimed on Software Licenses (vii) Capitalization of Interest on Capital Work in Progress 47,37,168/- (viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.7

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, to compute the short-term capital gain derived by the assessee on the sale of land. It was found that the stamp duty paid on the sale of land was at jantri value of Rs. 1.37 crores. Accordingly, the AO had taken the sale consideration of land at Rs.1.37 crores and worked out STCG

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

Section 50C in as much as what is transferred is neither land nor building, it is the shares of a private limited company. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has given reasonable justification in the sale consideration Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 4 of 7 received between two class of shareholders. One class of shareholders were also the tenants

MOHAMMEDAARIF YUNUSBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(2)(3)), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance under Section 50C of the Act on the basis of his report. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed

MOHAMMEDAARIF YUNUSBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance under Section 50C of the Act on the basis of his report. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed

MOHAMMEDAARIF YUNUSBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(2)(3)), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance under Section 50C of the Act on the basis of his report. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed

SARJAN REALITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

disallowance u/s. 43CA without considering the amount of Rs.3,09,19,083/- which is also a part of sales consideration of land collected against invoice raised. 4. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in considering Rs.21,66,66,000/- as value adopted by stamp authorities. Both the lower authorities have not correctly appreciated the method

SARJAN REALITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CICLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

disallowance u/s. 43CA without considering the amount of Rs.3,09,19,083/- which is also a part of sales consideration of land collected against invoice raised. 4. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in considering Rs.21,66,66,000/- as value adopted by stamp authorities. Both the lower authorities have not correctly appreciated the method

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs.64,04,221/-. The Ld.CIT(A) had taken note of the shifting of assessee’s operations from Kolkata to Ahmedabad and closure of old plant, which was sustaining losses and the circumstances where there is no likelihood of cost effective recovery ITA Nos.ITA Nos.1297 & 1298/Ahd/2014 Dy.CIT vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. AY(s) 2004-05 : 6 : of debts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs.64,04,221/-. The Ld.CIT(A) had taken note of the shifting of assessee’s operations from Kolkata to Ahmedabad and closure of old plant, which was sustaining losses and the circumstances where there is no likelihood of cost effective recovery ITA Nos.ITA Nos.1297 & 1298/Ahd/2014 Dy.CIT vs. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. AY(s) 2004-05 : 6 : of debts

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 50C(2). The Valuation Officer determined the value of the property at Rs.1,67,82,104/-. Thereafter, the AO recomputed the long-term capital gain as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale consideration (as per Valuation Report) 1,67,82,104/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 1,05,21,962/- (after restricting land cost to Rs. 27,67,465/-) Long

VIRANG JAYENDRABHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

50C of the Act. The property under consideration was a joint property owned by three members Bhartiben Jayendrabhai Shah, Jayendrabhai Pragjibhai Shah and Virangbhai Jayendrabhai Shah i.e. the assessee, with assessee’s share being 32.57%. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that his share of 32.57% in sale consideration of Rs.1,08,25,000/- comes to Rs.35

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

disallowed payments relating to the Anklav land and the Chansad land on the sole ground that the payments were made after 31.07.2015. It was submitted that the law does not mandate that the entire consideration should be paid before the due date under section 139(1), but what is relevant is the purchase of agricultural land within the time prescribed

SHREE YAMUNA INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 50C of the Act and also by disallowing the claim of cost of improvement while computing the capital gains

SHRENIK HIRALAL SHAH,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shrenik Hiralal Shah The Asstt.Cit 5/A Vrundavan Bungalows Vs Circle-1(1)91) Near Mathura Nagari, Tandalja Vadodara Vadodara -390 020 Gujarat, India Pan: Apnps 0058 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Amrion Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/10/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

section 50C(2) of the Act. 8) The learned CIT (A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in considering the cost of acquisition of the property at Rs .4,18,260 instead of Rs.4,40,023 claimed by the Appellant. Shrenik Hiralal Shah vs. ACIT Asst.Year 2010-11 9) The learned

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

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

disallowance of ₹3,05,400/- made by the Assessing Officer\nand confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified either on facts or in law. The\nexpenditure claimed was genuine, duly supported by evidence, and incurred\nwholly and exclusively for the purpose of improvement and transfer of the\nproperty. Since no contrary material has been brought on record

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed and added to the total income." From the above notice of the assessing officer, issued under section 142 (1) of the Act, it is vivid that assessing officer had conducted enquiry only in respect of deduction under section 80D of the Act amounting to Rs.25,000/-, We note that assessee had paid donations

SHREENATHJI ASSOCIATES,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

disallowance of brokerage paid on sale of land requires to be deleted. [III] Addition on account of Gross Profit in respect of sale of land - Rs.5,25,189/- 1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the impugned addition of Rs.5,25,189/- made by the AO on account of gross profit on sale