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

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

DILIP MOHANDAS DEVANI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above directions

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2:1 ratio, which was matching with the share of the sale proceeds of the property in question. However, the Assessing Officer, while finalizing the assessment, invoked Section 50C of the Act with a view to substitute the sale consideration with the stamp duty value and restricted the deduction under Section 54 to only 50% of the investment

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance; (d) the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction

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

2) and 54F(4) of the Act. According to the lower authorities, since certain investments and deposits in the Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO A.Y: 2015-16 Capital Gain Account Scheme were made after the due date prescribed under section 139(1), i.e. 31.07.2015, the assessee was held to be ineligible for deduction to that extent. The counsel submitted that

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

2 consideration of Rs.35 Lakhs. The gain derived by the assessee on the sale of this land was disclosed under the head “Income from business”. According to the AO, the gain derived on sale of land was assessable to tax under the head ‘capital gain’. The AO had applied the provision of section 50C of the Act, to compute

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

2) and 142(1) were issued on 27.08.2009 and duly served on the assessee. In response to the said notices, the Chartered Accountant of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and furnished the details. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is deriving income from salary, house property, capital gain and from other sources. The Assessing Officer

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

Section 50C(2) of the Act, if the assessee claims before the AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority exceeded the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, then the Assessing Officer was required to refer the valuation of the capital asset to the Valuation Officer. Such request was made

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

Section 50C(2) of the Act, if the assessee claims before the AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority exceeded the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, then the Assessing Officer was required to refer the valuation of the capital asset to the Valuation Officer. Such request was made

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

Section 50C(2) of the Act, if the assessee claims before the AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority exceeded the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, then the Assessing Officer was required to refer the valuation of the capital asset to the Valuation Officer. Such request was made

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

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

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance can be ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance can be ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance can be ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance can be ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance can be ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted