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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

property had been invested by the assessee in construction of residential house and also purchase of agricultural land. Accordingly, it was submitted that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 54B

RAMNIKLAL R BHADRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

House Property, Salary from Partnership Firm and Long Term Capital Gain [LTCG]. The assessee filed his Return of I.T.A No. 67/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Ramniklal R. Bhadra. vs. ACIT Income for the Asst. Year 2015-16 on 29-03-2016 declaring income of Rs.41,18,810/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny as the value