SHRI UMANG TEJPAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQ) (INTL. TAXN. & TP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

54 of the Act on reinvestment of two houses properties is not legally tenable. The law does not provide for investment in second house so far as deduction under section

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

house should be used for acquisition of the new asset, Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in respect of property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

house and had claimed exemption under section 54 as well as section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate the claim of exemption under section 54 and section 54EC of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the property

SHRI RAJAT B. MEHTA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTL. TAXN.), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

house property was scaled down. It was in this backdrop that out of the long term capital gain of Rs 1,89,77,426 that the assessee claimed a deduction, under section 54

PARIKH AMITKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

section 54 was claimed, but no submission was filed on the date fixed. 2.2 The Assessing Officer noted that during the year the assessee had sold a residential house property

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

section 54 of the Act, the assessee was to utilize the amount of capital gain aggregating to Rs. 4,05,20,000.00 for the construction of the residential property within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the bungalow. In other words, the assessee was under the obligation to complete the construction of residential house

YASH ASHITBHAI VASHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1476/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yash Ashitbhai Vashi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E/1, Pranav Apartment Ward-1, V/S. Shreyas Tekra International Taxation Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiipv 9386 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 54, as the new property was registered solely in the name of the assessee’s mother, Smt. Heenaben Vashi, and not in his own name. The AO was asked to submit a remand report through the ITBA system but failed to do so, leading the CIT(A) to decide the matter based on the available records. The assessee contended

VIPUL KAMAL PRAKASH SUD,SIDHPUR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

house property was not allowable as the basement which does not have basic amenities like bath-room, kitchen etc. cannot be treated as a residential property. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT had set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after re-examining the claim of deduction under Section 54

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

section 148 of the Act on 26.03.2019, and in response, the assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2019, declaring total income of Rs.15,24,000/-, which included income from house property at Rs.15,54

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

54,07,417/- which is spent by Shri Jawantbhai D. Patel on behalf of the appellant and the appellant has one half share of the property and therefore expense of Rs.77,03,708/- allowed u/s.48 of the Act while determining the long term capital gain. The appellant has further contended that the AO has issued summons u/s.131

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

54,07,417/- which is spent by Shri Jawantbhai D. Patel on behalf of the appellant and the appellant has one half share of the property and therefore expense of Rs.77,03,708/- allowed u/s.48 of the Act while determining the long term capital gain. The appellant has further contended that the AO has issued summons u/s.131

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

54,07,417/- which is spent by Shri Jawantbhai D. Patel on behalf of the appellant and the appellant has one half share of the property and therefore expense of Rs.77,03,708/- allowed u/s.48 of the Act while determining the long term capital gain. The appellant has further contended that the AO has issued summons u/s.131

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

54,07,417/- which is spent by Shri Jawantbhai D. Patel on behalf of the appellant and the appellant has one half share of the property and therefore expense of Rs.77,03,708/- allowed u/s.48 of the Act while determining the long term capital gain. The appellant has further contended that the AO has issued summons u/s.131

MANDAR KULKURNI, HUF,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

house property in the individual capacity i.e. Mandar Kulkarni. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the assessee, HUF, had not fulfilled a vital condition for the purchase of new property to be eligible for claiming deduction under Section 54

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. RAEVA PARIKH TRUST,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

house within two years, the claim under Section 54 is permissible since the trustee is to be assessed in the like manner and to the same extent as provided in section 161. [Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna V/s. CIT 177 ITR 275 (SC)]. 6.9 The principle of like manner and to the same extent has been decided

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

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDBAD vs. ASHIF MEHBBOBELAHI RUSHNAIWALA, AHMEDABAD

house in India within the time prescribed under Section 54(1), the deduction is bound to be granted without reference to Section 54(2), which compliance in my considered view, would come into operation only in the event of failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement under Section 54(1). Mere non compliance

JAY NARENDRAKUMAR THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 64/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Jay Narendrakumar Thakkar, I.T.O., A-503, Sagar Samrat Old Sharda Mandir, Vs. Ward-1(2)(2), Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aavpt8602J

house. At this juncture, we are inclined to refer the provisions of section 54 of the Act as applicable to the year in dispute which is extracted below: Profit on sale of property