SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

54F of the Act , which was claimed by the assessee on account of having invested long term capital gains earned in a new residential house. The Ld.PCIT found the claim to be not allowable since he found the assessee to have contravened the provisions of the said section by owning more than one residential house property on the date

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

section 54F of the Act by observing that the commercial tax department has cancelled the TIN of the supplier of the different building material, the appellant owns more than one house property ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 11 on the date of sale and the capital gain arise from the different properties as claimed by the appellant

CHINMAY GAURANGBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT (INTER.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

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

3. Since, as per the provisions of Section 54F of the Act as amended with effect from 01.04.2015, the claim of deduction was admissible only for the investment made in purchase of one residential house, the assessee was called upon by the Assessing Officer to offer his explanation in the matter. In reply, the following submission was filed

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

property purchased in the name of the\nassessee's brother does not qualify for exemption under Section 54B of the\nAct.\n9. 1. The first issue concerns the disallowance of the exemption on the\nground that the investments made by the assessee in a residential house and\nagricultural land were outside the statutory time limits prescribed under\nSections 54F

SHRI VIJAYBHAI HATHISING SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

54F of the Act, as the assessee had effectively only one residential house before purchase of the new property. The assessee sold Ambli Gam property on 05.04.2020 as an open plot of land with no structure existing thereon. Therefore the property cannot called as a house or residential property. Thus the assessee pleaded that it had submitted all required details

SHRI VIKAS NARAYAN BADDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2012-13

section 54F of the Act. ii) That even otherwise the facts demonstrate that the assessee intention all along was to immediately invest the net consideration in a new residential house . This he stated was evident from the fact that the assessee had parked the entire consideration immediately, on receipt of the same on sale of his property, in capital gain

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

property at Noble Antrix was acquired by him. The Assessing Officer noticed that a deduction under Section 54F of the Act was available only in the case where the assessee owns only one residential house other than new asset acquired by the assessee. Since this condition was not fulfilled, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under Section

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

property has not been fulfilled. Thus the AO denied the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). 5. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the requirement specified under section 54F

VINODBHAI UGARDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

3 years is not the only condition precedent for eligibility of deduction claimed. The other conditions would thus continue to apply. 10. Pertinent here to note that investment made for the purposes of construction of new residential House prior to the sale of original asset would not be entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act. The money deployed

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

house or in constructing a residential hour within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In the other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

3 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee along with other four co-owner transferred a land property situated at Block No. 170 Paiki, Moje-Samiyala admeasuring 9300 Sq. Mtr vide deed 20-07-2010 for a consideration of Rs. 93 Lakh in which assessee’s share was of Rs. 19 Lakh only. The assessee worked

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

3 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee along with other four co-owner transferred a land property situated at Block No. 170 Paiki, Moje-Samiyala admeasuring 9300 Sq. Mtr vide deed 20-07-2010 for a consideration of Rs. 93 Lakh in which assessee’s share was of Rs. 19 Lakh only. The assessee worked

ANIRUDDH RINKI GANDHI,BARODA vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXN), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

house within three years period as stipulated in Section 54F(1). In the present case the assessee though registered the old property as per Sale Deed dated 02-12-2014 but received the sale considerations only on 07-07-2015 and 12-10- 2015 respectively. The assessee also reinvested the sale 10 considerations immediate on the receipt of the same

SOBHA DIVYANG JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11 Sobha Divyang Joshi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 55, Prathna Vihar Society, Ward 5(2)(3), B/H Manekbaug, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 006 [Pan : Agxpj 9869 R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2020

3 that in certain schemes even floated by the government body i.e. Housing Boards, sometimes allotment letter are issued on receipt of first installments and possession of house was given after 4-5 years. Payments were also spread over in different years. Such cases were considered as eligible for grant of deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 6. Similarly

KANAIYALAL MULJIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

3 exemption under section 54F, the investment ought to have been made in the assessee’s individual name and not in the name of HUF, because, HUF is a separate taxable entity. On the other hand, stand of the assessee is that new house has been constructed on a plot purchased in the name of HUF, but members

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)

3 Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya. vs. DCIT 09.01.2013 for Rs.45,00,000/- and then purchased a unfinished flat for Rs.25,60,000/- on 17.02.2014 and the sale considerations were paid between 04.08.2011 to 08.12.2011 (much before the sale of the original property). The assessee also entered into a Construction Agreement on 25.02.2014 to complete the construction of unfinished flat

PADMINI SOLANKI, DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. ADITYA HARSHVADAN MANGALDAS, TATVA GARDAN, CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

54F of the Act for the reason that the assessee was owner of one residential house at the time of sale of capital asset and had constructed two more residential properties within a period of one year from the date of sale of the original capital asset. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3

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.

house. From the above provision, the assessee is under the obligation to make investment in the new property within the stipulated time either 1 year before or after 2 years or 3 years as the case may be from the date of transfer of the property. If the conditions are not satisfied then the assessee is not eligible for exemption

SHRI KAMLESH CHANDRAKANT PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 54F of the Act. He ought to have appreciated that LTCG of Rs.28,93,333/- cannot be taxed either in assessment year in which impugned property is sold or in A.Y. 2013-14. 3. On facts and in law and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of expenses