SATTARBHAI SULEMANBHAI MANSURI,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15 Mr.Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri Ito,Ward-3 Anjumarstrit Narth Gulam Floor Factri Vs. Himatnagar. Sarvoday Soc, Polo Ground Himatnagar Sabarkantha 383 001. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act computing a total income of Rs.24,26,232/- by making an addition of Rs.22,02,858/- towards long-term capital gain under section 50C

AMIT GIRDHARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. I.T.A No. 811/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Amit Girdharbhai Patel vs. ACIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

Section 50C(2) of the Act. 2. Upon receipt of the DVO report, the AO shall reconsider the addition of Rs.54,99,196/-, taking into account the fair market value as determined by the DVO rather than relying solely on the stamp duty valuation. 3. The AO shall afford the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard during this reassessment

SHRI BABUBHAI SHANTILAL SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment were reopened for escapement of income to Rs. 52,73,470/- by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. However

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

section Dilip Mohandas Devani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 3– 50C of the Income-tax Act (Act), the stamp duty value must be adopted as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains. The assessee had not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012–13. Accordingly, reassessment

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)

Section 50C of the Act was totally omitted to be considered. It was pointed out that there are concurrent observations of both the AO in its reassessment

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND

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

reassessment proceedings,\nthe assessee was issued several notices under Section 142(1) of the Act calling\nfor details of the sale transaction, computation of capital gains, and supporting\ndocuments. In response, the assessee initially contended that he had purchased\nagricultural land on 12.04.2010 for Rs.4,03,650/- and sold the same on\n05.07.2011 for Rs.10,00,000/-. The assessee argued

RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

50C and treated the jantri value as the full value of consideration, further computing the entire amount as long-term capital gain under section 48 by taking cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as nil, since no evidence had been furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The reassessment

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR vs. SHRI VALLABHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL, BHAVNAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal On

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 34 days in filing the above appeal. This appeal is filed before the Tribunal on I.T.A No. 07/Ahd/2021

PRAVINBHAI LADHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment notice under Section 147 in as much as there was no tangible material or any other evidences for the purpose of Assessing Officer to form a view about reason to believe and that there is no escapement of income and therefore the notice issued is bad in law. 1.1 The appellant says and submits that the reasons given

SHRI HEMANG CHIMANBHAI POKAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 50C of the Act, while computing the capital gain earned by the assessee. Accordingly the assessment order was set aside by the ld. PCIT directing the A.O. to make requisite inquiry and proper verification with respect to the issue. 3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the impugned case regular assessment

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

50C of the Act and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. While giving effect to this order, the Assessing Officer should also consider the last income determined.” 6. With the assistance of the learned Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of Section 263 of the Act would reveal that it contemplates that

RINKI SHASHIKANT GANDHI,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

Section 50C without issuing proper notice or providing an opportunity for the appellant to submit a valuation report. Ground 4 Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that sale consideration was not paid in 2005. Ld. CIT (A) ignored the sale deed dtd. 09/02/2005 wherein page 9 & 10 clearly mention payment cheque number and amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- paid

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

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

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

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

VASANTIBEN CHIMANBHAI PATEL,PATAN vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE PALANPUR, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Section 50C arise. The Assessing Officer held that no opening stock of land or closing stock of land shown by the assessee in the Return of Income, therefore the claim of business income was rejected and difference in sale consideration and assessee’s 15% share of Rs. 63,53,312/- is added u/s. 50C of the Act and demanded

RAMILABEN GANPATBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, The Income-Tax Officer, 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Vs Ward 3(3)(4), Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Income-Tax Officer, Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, Ward 3(3)(4), Vs 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Ahmedabad Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.C. Shah, Ar & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

50C of the Act. Accordingly, 1/3rd share of the assessee in the said capital gain at Rs.1,12,30,933/- was assessed by the Assessing Officer on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee and the ITA Nos. 2968/Ahd/2017 & 157/Ahd/2018 Smt Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel-Cross Appeals AY : 2012-13 5 remaining capital gain of Rs.2

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RAMILABEN G. PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, The Income-Tax Officer, 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Vs Ward 3(3)(4), Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Income-Tax Officer, Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel, Ward 3(3)(4), Vs 5, Rajsurya Bungalows, Ahmedabad Nr. Fun Republic, Ramdevnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051 Pan : Aaspp 2683 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.C. Shah, Ar & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

50C of the Act. Accordingly, 1/3rd share of the assessee in the said capital gain at Rs.1,12,30,933/- was assessed by the Assessing Officer on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee and the ITA Nos. 2968/Ahd/2017 & 157/Ahd/2018 Smt Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel-Cross Appeals AY : 2012-13 5 remaining capital gain of Rs.2