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

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 in the new house

JIVABHAI MADHABHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Housing Society, Isanpurgam Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382443 The Income-Tax Officer, [PAN : ARHPD 8125 F] Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Pritesh Shah, CA Respondent by: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr DR Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed

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

section 50C of the Act. As regards working out the sale consideration by adopting the jantri value as on date of agreement, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the matter may be set aside to the AO for this purpose with suitable direction. Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel Vs. DCIT, AY- 2012-13 6 8. We have considered the rival submissions. From

DEVINDRABEN RAJESHBHAI SHARMA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1) VADODARA , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 50C of the Act is totally illegal and unjust and the same be deleted accordingly. 3. The lower authorities have erred in not considering the Banakhat entered into by Appellant dated 24.8.2010 without providing any valid reasons or pointing out any defect therein. It is submitted that the Banakhat entered into by the Appellant dated 24.8 2010 is duly

KALPTARU INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-3 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Housing LLP [2024] 168 taxmann.com 536 (Mumbai - Trib.), while dealing with a similar issue Kalptaru Infrabuild vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– held that where deed of conveyance was executed on 31.03.2017, provisions of Section 56(2)(x), which were inserted by Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017, were not applicable to the assessee and accordingly the difference between

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

house property at Rs.15,54,000/- and showing capital gains at NIL after claiming indexed cost of acquisition. 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold immovable property situated at Kasba RS No. 685/1, PCS Sheet No. 142, VV-4 CS 2895/1/A, Manjalpur, Vadodara, for a declared sale consideration of Rs.90

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

property has also given the share accordingly which cannot be treated at par as given under Section 50C to the value of equity share. Thus, the decision of CIT vs. Salora International Limited (supra) relied by the Ld. DR does not apply as here the assessee has explained Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page

RINKI SHASHIKANT GANDHI,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

Section 50C without issuing proper notice or providing an opportunity for the appellant to submit a valuation report. Ground 4 Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that sale consideration was not paid in 2005. Ld. CIT (A) ignored the sale deed dtd. 09/02/2005 wherein page 9 & 10 clearly mention payment cheque number and amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- paid

SHALIMAR FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Housing Society, Ahmedabad. B/h. Paraskunj Society, Satellite Road, Vs. Joadhpur, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [PAN – AADCS 9786 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Nupur Shah, AR Revenue by Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2024 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These four appeals are filed by four different Assessees against

SEJAL FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Housing Society, Ahmedabad. B/h. Paraskunj Society, Satellite Road, Vs. Joadhpur, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [PAN – AADCS 9786 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Nupur Shah, AR Revenue by Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2024 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These four appeals are filed by four different Assessees against

SUDAMA FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Housing Society, Ahmedabad. B/h. Paraskunj Society, Satellite Road, Vs. Joadhpur, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [PAN – AADCS 9786 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Nupur Shah, AR Revenue by Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2024 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These four appeals are filed by four different Assessees against

SHANTI FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Housing Society, Ahmedabad. B/h. Paraskunj Society, Satellite Road, Vs. Joadhpur, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [PAN – AADCS 9786 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Nupur Shah, AR Revenue by Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2024 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These four appeals are filed by four different Assessees against

SHRENIK HIRALAL SHAH,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shrenik Hiralal Shah The Asstt.Cit 5/A Vrundavan Bungalows Vs Circle-1(1)91) Near Mathura Nagari, Tandalja Vadodara Vadodara -390 020 Gujarat, India Pan: Apnps 0058 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Amrion Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/10/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

section 50C(2) of the Act. 8) The learned CIT (A) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in considering the cost of acquisition of the property at Rs .4,18,260 instead of Rs.4,40,023 claimed by the Appellant. Shrenik Hiralal Shah vs. ACIT Asst.Year 2010-11 9) The learned

ISHWARBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI ,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 3(3)(5) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 56(2)(x) read with\nsection 50C(2) of the Act mandates him that once the assessee disputes the\ncorrectness of the stamp duty valuation, it is obligatory on the part of the AO to refer\nthe valuation of the property to the DVO. In view of this, the entire addition made of\nRs 18,10,640/- without referring

TEJABHAI NAGJIBHAI MAKWANA,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

50C of the IT Act , 1961 without appreciating the facts and law of the case properly. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law on facts in denying alternative claim of the appellant to grant the exemption u/s 54B & 54F as per the law and thereby passed the order in the breach of principle of natural justice

KAJAL CO.OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

Housing Society The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Limited, Ward-3(1)(2), 1st Floor Aarohi Complex, Ahmedabad. Near Pal 444 200 Ft. Ring Road, Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. [PAN :AAAA6565 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul K Patel, AR Respondent by: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement