SHRI KARAN RAJENDRAKUMAR ARYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Shri Karan Rajendrakumar Arya, The Principal Commissioner Of 802, Saffron, Panchvati, Vs. Income Tax-1, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

house, then it should be deemed that sufficient steps have been taken and this satisfies the requirements of section 54 of the Act. 7.6 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of deduction provided under section 54 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances merely

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)

property for a consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- on 09.01.2013 which has resulted in Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.23,17,183/- after applying cost of indexation. Similarly undisputed fact is the assessee purchased new uncompleted flat on 17.02.2014 for a sale consideration of Rs.25,60,000/- and entered into a Construction Agreement for Rs.51

MOHIT VIJAYKUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, Ground No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1091/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta The Dcit बनाम/ B-1001, Juhu Trishul, Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gulmohar Cross Road No.6 Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jvpd Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adfpg 7162 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J. C. Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2021-22

54B, 54EC, 54EE, 54F, 54G, 54GA and 54GB of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer passed an order assessing the total income at ₹11,02,69,810/– as against the returned income of Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2021-22 3 ₹10,60,37,350/–. The additions made by the AO included

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:

54B and Section 54 of the Act have different conditions, and Section 54 does not allow exemption if the new property is not in the assessee’s own name. The assessee also failed to provide any documentary evidence proving co-ownership or investment in his own name. In light of these findings, the AO disallowed the deduction

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 as per the DVO’s report, the CIT(A) upheld the same. However, as regards the claim of exemption under section 54B even though the assessee had only entered into an agreement of purchasing the land, the CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee by observing as follows:- “6.3 I have considered the facts and the circumstances

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 as per the DVO’s report, the CIT(A) upheld the same. However, as regards the claim of exemption under section 54B even though the assessee had only entered into an agreement of purchasing the land, the CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee by observing as follows:- “6.3 I have considered the facts and the circumstances

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 as per the DVO’s report, the CIT(A) upheld the same. However, as regards the claim of exemption under section 54B even though the assessee had only entered into an agreement of purchasing the land, the CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee by observing as follows:- “6.3 I have considered the facts and the circumstances

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 as per the DVO’s report, the CIT(A) upheld the same. However, as regards the claim of exemption under section 54B even though the assessee had only entered into an agreement of purchasing the land, the CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee by observing as follows:- “6.3 I have considered the facts and the circumstances

SANDIP KANUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 104/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2017-2018 Sandip Kanubhai Patel, Principal Commissioner Of Avirat House, Vs. Income Tax-3, Nr. Science City, Ahmedabad. Sola Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad.

House property, share of profit from partnership, capital gain and from other sources. The assessee during the year sold an agricultural property bearing survey number 131 situated at Gota for Rs. 3 Crores and earned capital gain of Rs. 2,48,30,920/- only. Against the capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption under section 54B

SHRI LAXMANBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 54B of the Act as the investment in the agricultural land purchased stands at " 1,38,22,000.00 which is more than the capital gain even if the benefit of cost of improvement is ignored. 25. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and deriving income under the head house property

SHRI ATIT MAHESHWARI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 54B of the Act as the investment in the agricultural land purchased stands at " 1,38,22,000.00 which is more than the capital gain even if the benefit of cost of improvement is ignored. 25. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and deriving income under the head house property

SHRI MAHESHBHAI S PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 54B of the Act as the investment in the agricultural land purchased stands at " 1,38,22,000.00 which is more than the capital gain even if the benefit of cost of improvement is ignored. 25. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and deriving income under the head house property

SMT. BHAVNABEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 54B of the Act as the investment in the agricultural land purchased stands at " 1,38,22,000.00 which is more than the capital gain even if the benefit of cost of improvement is ignored. 25. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and deriving income under the head house property

SMT. BHAVNABEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 54B of the Act as the investment in the agricultural land purchased stands at " 1,38,22,000.00 which is more than the capital gain even if the benefit of cost of improvement is ignored. 25. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and deriving income under the head house property

SHRI SHANTILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 54B of the Act as the investment in the agricultural land purchased stands at " 1,38,22,000.00 which is more than the capital gain even if the benefit of cost of improvement is ignored. 25. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and deriving income under the head house property

SHRI BHADRESH SURYAKANT PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2012-13 Shri Bhadresh Suryakant Patel, Income Tax Officer, A-73, Mathura Nagari, Vs Ward-1(2)(3), Behind Nand Society, Vadodara Old Padra Road, Vadodara Pan : Aklpp 1848 G अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/12/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals-5), Vadodara [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25.02.2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.11,41,430/- Claimed Under Section 54B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

section 54B are satisfied. Whatever amount received against sale is invested for Purchase of Land. Appellant has relied on following rulings:- (i) Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO [1992] 41 ITD 368 (Pune-Trib.) (ii) Parveen P. Bharucha v/s CIT212 Taxman 166(Bom.) (iii) CIT v/s Ms Jagriti Aggarwal reported in 339 ITR 610 (P&H) (iv) CIT Rohtak v/s Shri

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

property situated at Ahmedabad. In terms of Section 54F since the sale proceeds have to be utilized for purchase of a residential house or construction of a house as already mentioned hereinabove, the benefits of Section 54F have also been denied to the assessee for not fulfilling the criteria under the said statutory provisions. The assessee has also claimed

DCIT, CIR.4(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LALITBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

54B of the Act by observing as follows: “……5.3 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered thoroughly. The appellant with other partner, Shri Bharatbhai Patel entered into Banakhat with Vendor, Shri I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel Kiran V. Patel

DCIT, CIR, 4(2), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

54B of the Act by observing as follows: “……5.3 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered thoroughly. The appellant with other partner, Shri Bharatbhai Patel entered into Banakhat with Vendor, Shri I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel Kiran V. Patel