SHRI AMRUTBHAI ATMARAMBHAI PATEL, HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no 1 of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose, ground no

section 50C according to sale consideration determined on the basis of stamp duty value of the property. Accordingly the assessing officer has determined the stamp value of the property at Rs.3,40,00000/- and worked out capital gain at Rs. 19,90,196/- in respect of assessee’s shares of 387 sq. yard. The assessee was also show caused

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

2) i.e. before the extended due date for return u/s.139. The assessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return u/s. 139(4). But, however, utilized the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date u/s. 139(4). The contention of the revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial

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

2) i.e. before the extended due date for return u/s.139. The assessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return u/s. 139(4). But, however, utilized the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date u/s. 139(4). The contention of the revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial

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

2) i.e. before the extended due date for return u/s.139. The assessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return u/s. 139(4). But, however, utilized the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date u/s. 139(4). The contention of the revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial

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

2) i.e. before the extended due date for return u/s.139. The assessee technically may have defaulted in not filing the return u/s. 139(4). But, however, utilized the capital gains for purchase of property before the extended due date u/s. 139(4). The contention of the revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial

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

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

2:1 ratio, which was matching with the share of the sale proceeds of the 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

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

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. BIMLADEVI SUBHAKARAN AGARWAL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 130/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit Smt. Bimladevi बनाम/ Subhankaran Agarwal Circle-5(2), Vs. 7, Adyapak Mitramandal Ahmedabad Society, Bhd. Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-06 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acy Pa9 795 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

2. The solitary ground of appeal of the Revenue is against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,86,630/- made u/s. 50C of the Act that the proviso to sub section (1) of Sec. 50C of the Act is not with retrospective effect of it came into effect from 01.04.2017 only

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

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

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

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

House gases), including carbon dioxide which is done through several ways such as by switching over to wind and solar energy, forest regeneration, installation of energy-efficient machinery, landfill methane capture, etc. The Kyoto Protocol commits certain developed countries to reduce their GHG emissions and for this, they will be given carbon credits. A reduction in emissions entitles the entity

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

House gases), including carbon dioxide which is done through several ways such as by switching over to wind and solar energy, forest regeneration, installation of energy-efficient machinery, landfill methane capture, etc. The Kyoto Protocol commits certain developed countries to reduce their GHG emissions and for this, they will be given carbon credits. A reduction in emissions entitles the entity

SIRHIND STEELS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. reported in 20 taxmann.com 770 where it was held as under: As per section 2(11), the expression 'block of assets' means group of assets falling within the assets enumerated in clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a ) refers to tangible assets, including building, machinery, plant and clause (b) refers to intangible assets like copyright, know how, trade

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

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

2,04,181/-. Similarly, income from house property has been reflected which was also shown as indirect income in the profit and loss account. Thus, loss was claimed at Rs.3,27,171 only. But since the assessee has not reflected any turnover during the year and there is no gross profit accruing, therefore, the salary expenses, telephone expenses and depreciation

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