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

disallowance of deduction under section 54B amounting to Rs.1,50,26,830/- and under section 54F amounting to Rs.16,71,696/- was confirmed

SHRI ASHOKBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT.TAXA.)-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 405/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Shri Ashokbhai Kanubhai Patel, A.C.I.T., 8, Parul Society, Vs. (Int. Taxation)-1, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Arrpp4895J

section 54B of the Act have not been satisfied and therefore exemption claimed by the assessee is not allowable. The reasons recorded by the AO for denying the exemption are reproduced as under: (a) Assessee has failed to produce evidences that the land sold was used for agricultural purposes in the preceding two years from the date of transfer

PRAVINSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54B of the Act amounting to ₹3,05,16,220/- on the ground

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-:

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 54B of the Act. 9. The disallowance made by the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NITINBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-2017 Ito, Ward-4(2)(3) Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel Ahmedabad. Vs. Room No.303, 3Rd Floor Aaykar Bhavan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaspp 5802 F (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025

section 54B was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the addition of Rs. 6,64,83,153/- was confirmed by the CIT(A). Although

VIPUL PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKKAR,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of the deduction under section 54B was confirmed. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid

BHANUBHAI MANILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B of the Act was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Before us, the assessee contended that CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of the deduction of ₹2,74,00,000/- claimed under section

L/H LATE SHRI ARVINDBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL (SHRI PARESHBHAI PATEL),VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 54B(2) of the Act, it can be seen that the Act compels the assessee to deposit the unutilized amount in the prescribed scheme, therefore, this submission of the assessee is not acceptable since the assessee fails to comply with the provision of the Act and therefore, exemption availed by the assessee in this regard was required

BHOGILAL BAHILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT -1, VADOADAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 475/2 Sagar Faliya Vadodara. At & Post Bhayali Vadodara 391 410. Pan : Bkkpp 3136 R

Section 263 in reference to disallowing of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act without appreciating that Assessee is eligible for the claim

SHRI BHADRESH SURYAKANT PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2012-13 Shri Bhadresh Suryakant Patel, Income Tax Officer, A-73, Mathura Nagari, Vs Ward-1(2)(3), Behind Nand Society, Vadodara Old Padra Road, Vadodara Pan : Aklpp 1848 G अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/12/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals-5), Vadodara [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25.02.2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.11,41,430/- Claimed Under Section 54B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

disallowance of deduction of Rs.11,41,430/- claimed under Section 54B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short

SHRI RIDDHISHBHAI B.TRIVEDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-III,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section 54B is admissible only in the case where the land had been used for agriculture purpose for the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, you were not entitled for exemption u/s.54B. Thus, the amount of Rs.31,00,000/- claimed as exemption u/s. 54B was required to be disallowed

SHRI MATRABHAI REVABHAI BHARVAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the action of learned AO in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B

SANDIP KANUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 104/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2017-2018 Sandip Kanubhai Patel, Principal Commissioner Of Avirat House, Vs. Income Tax-3, Nr. Science City, Ahmedabad. Sola Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad.

disallowances of exemption under section 54B of the Act accepted the claim of the assessee merely on basis of copy

YASH ASHITBHAI VASHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1476/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yash Ashitbhai Vashi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E/1, Pranav Apartment Ward-1, V/S. Shreyas Tekra International Taxation Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiipv 9386 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

54B and Section 54 of the Act have different conditions, and Section 54 does not allow exemption if the new property is not in the assessee’s own name. The assessee also failed to provide any documentary evidence proving co-ownership or investment in his own name. In light of these findings, the AO disallowed

SMT. NITIN R SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 54B, the disallowance of deduction of Rs.38,50,000/- u/s.54B is found correct and has to be upheld. The addition

SHRI PARAS CHINUBHAI JANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

disallowed investment in land amounting to ITA No. 927/Ahd/17 [Paras C. Jani vs. Pr.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 4 - Rs.23,06,723/- for contravention of Section 54B

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HITENDRAKUMAR BHAILALBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

54B of the Act. 7 23.05.2018 The assessee earlier moved an application before the Assessing Officer apprising him the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in ITA No.1114/Ahd/2014 dated 21.12.2017. He requested to give effect to this order and learned Assessing Officer has passed an order under Section 154 of the Act on 24.05.2018. He determined the taxable income at Rs.6

USHABEN MAGANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5) NOW WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowing exemption under Section 54B amounting to Rs.32,70,210/- claimed against the long-term capital gain arising out of sale

RAMSINHJI MERAJI VANZARA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 270 A of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 02.10.2018 declaring capital gains arising