DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,89,59,190/- claimed under section 54F of the Act. As such, the assessee

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

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

section 54F of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act. 7.1 On the other

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

section 54F of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act. 7.1 On the other

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

54F (as per\nAO's working)\nDeduction claimed by the assessee in revised computation\nExcess deduction claimed and disallowed\n32,67,375/-\n7,70,000/-\n24,97,375/-\n19,17,001/-\n25,08,037/-\n5,91,036/-\n3. 3. Accordingly, the AO proportionately disallowed Rs.5,91,036/- from\nthe claimed deduction.\n3. 4. The assessee claimed exemption under Section

PADMINI SOLANKI, DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. ADITYA HARSHVADAN MANGALDAS, TATVA GARDAN, CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

section 54F and for this reason the AO has disallowed claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act to the Appellant

SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowing the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act by treating the deposit made in the Capital Gains

SOBHA DIVYANG JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 Sobha Divyang Joshi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 55, Prathna Vihar Society, Ward 5(2)(3), B/H Manekbaug, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 006 [Pan : Agxpj 9869 R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2020

disallowance of exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.20 lakhs. 3. The undisputed facts are that

VINODBHAI UGARDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

disallowance of claim of exemption of capital gains under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.59,32,904/-. 7. The facts

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 54F of the Act was disallowed which was in turn confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant

KANAIYALAL MULJIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

disallowance of exemption under section 54F of the 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.57,74,673/- revised by the AO. 3. Brief

SHRI KAMLESH CHANDRAKANT PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 54F of the Act. He ought to have appreciated that LTCG of Rs.28,93,333/- cannot be taxed either in assessment year in which impugned property is sold or in A.Y. 2013-14. 3. On facts and in law and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by the A.O. in respect of the appellant's claim for exemption/deduction of one house u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) and the A.O. failed to correctly interpret the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2014, wherein

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 54F of the Act was available only in the case where the assessee owns only one residential house other than new asset acquired by the assessee. Since this condition was not fulfilled, the Assessing Officer disallowed

ANIRUDDH RINKI GANDHI,BARODA vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXN), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

disallowance under section 54 of the Act proportionately for Rs.48,00,572/- thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. Aggrieved with this appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The Ld AR submitted that the lower authorities are legally not correct in restricting the relief to Rs.48,00,572/-. The CIT[A] erred

MOHAMMADANIF SULATANALI PRADHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1797/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mohammadanif Sultanali The Dcit बनाम/ Pradhan Circle-6(1) Vs. 1-5, Classic Sunny Complex, Ahmedabad-380 006 Shah E Alam, Tollnaka Ahmedabad-380 028 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abcpp 1862 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.Dr

section 54F of the Act with respect to one bungalow only amounting to ₹43,77,118.00 and thus, he disallowed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3),, VADODARA vs. SMT. JAGRUTIBEN HARISHKUMAR CHOKSHI,, VADODARA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Roydcit, Smt. Jagrutiben बनाम/ Circle – 1(3), Harishkumar Chokshi, Vs. Vadodara – 390 007. Chokshi Bazar, Padra, Vadodara. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abepc 7231 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shir M. K. Patel, A.R.

section 54F of the Act and added back Rs. 75,11,815/- in respect of exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act to the total income. 5. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT-A claimed that he has purchased a plot of land no. 14, TP Scheme

JAYVANTKUMAR RAMANLAL CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 54F of the Act and the Assessing Officer, after verifying the same, has disallowed the claim under Section 54 of the Act and has allowed

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

Section 14 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of time spent in Surat Bench. Copy of the order of the ITAT Surat Bench dated 21.11.2023 was placed before us. Noting the above facts, it is held that there was no delay in filing the present appeal before us. 3. Taking up adjudication of the present appeal, the grounds raised