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

1,50,26,830/- on the Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO A.Y: 2015-16 erroneous plea that the appellant has not complied with provisions of Section 54B of the Act. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the appellant's case in confirming disallowance of deduction U/s 54F

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

1) i.e. 30-07- 2011. Therefore, the assessee was required to deposit the sale proceeds in authorized bank account under capital gain account in order to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act but no such deposit was made. Therefore, the AO requires the assessee to explain why the claim of exemption under section 54F should not be disallowed

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

1) i.e. 30-07- 2011. Therefore, the assessee was required to deposit the sale proceeds in authorized bank account under capital gain account in order to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act but no such deposit was made. Therefore, the AO requires the assessee to explain why the claim of exemption under section 54F should not be disallowed

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

disallowed which was in turn confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. The crux of the submission made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee in this that the provision of Section 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally in the aspect of limitation period. It was further contended

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 the assessee has sold an immovable property, i.e. land, alongwith six co-owners on 11.02.2010. Her share in the capital gain or sale of property was Rs.23,33,500/-. She did not file return; but in response to the notice

SHRI MOHIT RAMESHCHANDRA KHANNA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2132/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Shri Mohit Rameshchandra Khanna, I.T.O, 174-175, Sunrise Park, Vs. Ward-3(3)(3), Opp. Drive In Cinema, Ahmedabad. Drive-In-Road, Ahmedabad.

54F of the Act despite the fact that the assessee failed to comply the formalities/conditions as specified therein. Accordingly, we hold that it is a fit case for imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. 10.3 We also find support and guidance from the judgment

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 and 54B\nof the Act, on the grounds that (i) the investments were not made within the\nprescribed time limits, and (ii) the property purchased in the name of the\nassessee's brother does not qualify for exemption under Section 54B of the\nAct.\n9. 1. The first issue concerns the disallowance

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:

Section 54F(1). In the present case the assessee though registered the old property as per Sale Deed dated 02-12-2014 but received the sale considerations only on 07-07-2015 and 12-10- 2015 respectively. The assessee also reinvested the sale 10 considerations immediate on the receipt of the same which is well within 3 years period

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

SHRI BHUPESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2287/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.54 of the Act. 7. On appeal to the Ld.CIT(A), did not bring any relief to the assessee. Shri Bhupesh Navinchandra Raval vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2013-14 8. Before me, ld.counsel for the assessee contended that identical situation has been considered by the Division Bench of ITAT Chandigarh in the case

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 Account Scheme as not fully forming part of the cost of the new asset. The assessee submitted that that the Capital Gains Account Scheme is a statutory relief provided when the cost of the new asset is not fully determined

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance itself was justified. This concurrent view of the Commissioner (Appeals), Tribunal and the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. 11. In view of the development of law at the stage of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. 's case (supra), one need not take the trouble of distinguishing Dilip N. Shroff's case (supra), since

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

disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act for the reason that the assessee was owner of one residential house at the time of sale of capital asset and had constructed two more residential properties within a period of one year from the date of sale of the original capital asset. The assessment was completed under Section

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of claim of exemption u/s 54B and 54F and/or the addition made by the Learned AO. 4. The Learned AO in the penalty proceeding issued a show-cause notice on 28.01.2014 as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon him for concealment of income. The Learned AO observed that none has attended nor filed

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 facts of the case are that originally assessee has filed his return of income on 15.6.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.3,76,810/-. This return was processed under section 143(1

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 pertaining to the same being that the assessee had alongwith other co-owners sold land in the impugned year for Rs.2,29,46,000/-, his share in the same being Rs. 64,75,000/- .The assessee had computed

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

1,08,00,000.00. The assessee in support of the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act contended that he has made investment in 2 bungalows which are adjacent to each other bearing No. 18 and 19 located at survey No. 606/2, TPS No. 92, Sarkhej – Makarba –Okaf- Fatewadi of Mouje Sarkhej , Tal Vejalpur, Distt Ahmedabad. Mohammadanif Sultanali Pradhan

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 of expenses