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

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

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

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

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

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

DINESHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRXLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance should not be made. As per Principal CIT, the assessee failed to respond adequately. Upon reviewing the case, Principal CIT held that the Assessing Officer had not Dineshbhai Dahyabhai Patel vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2015-16 - 3– conducted necessary inquiries regarding the cash transactions and the legitimacy of the cash book entries. This failure constituted grounds for revision under section

LATE SHRI RANJITSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA THRU L/H BHARATSINH R. VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. (3) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the entire addition ought to have been deleted, as prayed for. (4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” Late Shri Ranjitsinh Bhawansih Vaghela (L/h. Through Bharatsinh R. Vaghela) vs. ITO Asst.Year

DARPAN KANUBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 123/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Darpan Kanubhai Shah The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Darpan Travels, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Near Ramji Mandir, Vadodara Madanzampa Road, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Agips 3405 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 22.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “(1) The Learned Cit(Appeal) Is Not Correct In Holding That The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income U/S 148. Consequently The Learned Cit (Appeal) Is Not Correct That The Appeal Is Not Liable To Be Admitted. (Ii) Alternatively Appeal Is Allowed By Set Aside The Order & Matter Referred Back To The Desk Of Hon. Cit For Reconsideration. Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. Ito Ay : 2018-19 2

disallow claim of section 54B of the Act as the assessee has purchased Agriculture Land within two years.” 3. The facts

NOORMAHMEDBHAI HAJIBHAI MOMIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

54B of the Act was claimed by the assessee despite sufficient opportunities having been granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 48 and Section

REJESHRI OMPRAKASH MALVIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-4(1)(3)), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

54B, 54C, 54D 54G & 54GA of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,27,21,724/- on sale of land at Ratanpur and claimed the entire capital gain as exempt under Section 54G of the Act. The assessee was called upon to furnish various details but the assessee

LATE SHRI CHHATRASINH J.VAGHELA THRU L/H KAMLABEN C.VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallate Shri Chhatrasingh J. Vs. Vaghela, Income-Tax Officer, Through L/H Kamlaben C. Ward-1, Vaghela, At & Post : Sargasan, Gandhinagar Sargasan, Gandhinagar-382421 [Pan : Atnpv 4710 C]

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Late Shri Chhatrasingh J. Vaghela Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– (3) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the entire addition ought to have been deleted, as prayed for.” 3. In this case, the assessee, Late Shri Chhatrasinh J. Vaghela, was a co-owner

NITABAHEN DINESHBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

54B of the Act which, however, was disallowed by the AO. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 27.02.2023 at total income of Rs.4,53,940/-. Subsequently, the case record was called for examination by the Ld. PCIT. He found that the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.2001 was wrongly worked

BHOGILAL BHAILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 613/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Bhogilal Bhailalbhai The Pr. Commissioner Of Patel Income Tax-1 Vs. 475/2, Sagar Faliya, At & Vadodara Post Bhayali, Vadodara - 391410 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bkkpp3136R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hemant Suthar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit. Dr 19/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.6,19,980/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,94,450/-. The original assessment