THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), BARODA vs. SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also

SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA vs. SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention ITA Nos. 464 & 513/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Vinodbhai J Patel -cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 6 of 12 that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore

SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention ITA Nos. 464 & 513/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Vinodbhai J Patel -cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 6 of 12 that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) v/s. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN:ACNPM 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Revenue by : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

SHRI RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(9),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 465/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

house property on 21.08.2009 for a consideration of Rs.8 Lakhs as per sale deed was very much present to the mind of the Assessing Officer and therefore invoking s.147 of the Act for substitution of ‘deemed sale consideration’ of Rs.13,17,000/- in place of Rs.8 Lakhs for the purposes of determination of capital gains with reference to Section 50C

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

JAYSHRIBEN BHARATBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2011-12 Jayshriben Bharatbhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(3)(2) Village :Garadi Vs Vadodara. Taluka :Sinor Vadodara 391 210 Pan : Bjupp 1758 E

house under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.2,75,939/-. The AO, while 2 framing assessment, computed the capital gains by substituting the sale consideration received by the assessee with the stamp duty value of the property as per section 50C

SMT. VANITA VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2010-11 Smt. Vanita Vaswani, The Pcit (Central), 2, Samprat Co-Op. Housing Vs Ahmedabad Society Limited, Opp. Rivera, 11, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad - 380015 Pan : Aakpv 7868 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar & Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad Dated 28.03.2021, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2010-2011. The Assessee Has Taken 7 Grounds Of Appeal Which Read As Under:- “1. The Ld. Pcit (Central), Ahmedabad ("The Pcit") Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Invoking Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") & Has Further Erred In Directing The Ld. Ao To Pass Fresh Assessment Order Incorporating The Market Value Of The Property As Per Section 50C Of The Act. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Case Of The Appellant In Failing To Take Smt. Vanita Vaswani Vs. Pr. Cit Ay : 2010-2011 2

Housing Vs Ahmedabad Society Limited, Opp. Rivera, 11, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad - 380015 PAN : AAKPV 7868 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, AR & Shri Vijay Govani, AR Revenue by : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/07/2021 घोषणा

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

GALAXY GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.134/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Galaxy Global Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 4Th Floor Commercial House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. Rajvansh Tower, Ahmedabad. Near Surel Bunglows, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad.

House, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. Rajvansh Tower, Ahmedabad. Near Surel Bunglows, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. PAN: AACCG1840P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Biren Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/01/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JITENDRA SHANABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed & C

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

house property, salary as Director in a company, capital gains and income from other sources. In past years also, the assessee had not declared any agricultural income. This fact is quite an indicative of ITA No.2571/Ahd/2017 & CO No.43/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 3 of 5 intention of the assessee for buying a land in an area where in the industrial

SHRI ANIL GOPIRAM KOKRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

house was adopted at Rs.55,14,286/- and office at Rs.13,30,612/-. On strength of section 50C, the ld.AO confronted the assessee as to why sale consideration be not deemed equivalent to the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty payment. According to the AO, a show cause notice vide order-sheet entry dated 23.3.2015 was given

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