SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

section 132 of the Act. 108. The facts of the case are that there was the search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 13th November 2014. Accordingly, the proceedings for the assessment under the provisions of section 153A of the Act were initiated

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. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “(1) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in holding that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act is valid. (2) That on facts and evidence on record, it ought to have been held that

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

68,600/-, the assessee did not dispute the same but requested that the matter be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The value of land, as per DVO’s report, turned out to Rs.2,75,14,000/-. It was in this backdrop that the Assessing Officer adopted the sale consideration (being 50% of the total sale consideration) at Rs.1

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

68,600/-, the assessee did not dispute the same but requested that the matter be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The value of land, as per DVO’s report, turned out to Rs.2,75,14,000/-. It was in this backdrop that the Assessing Officer adopted the sale consideration (being 50% of the total sale consideration) at Rs.1

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

68,600/-, the assessee did not dispute the same but requested that the matter be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The value of land, as per DVO’s report, turned out to Rs.2,75,14,000/-. It was in this backdrop that the Assessing Officer adopted the sale consideration (being 50% of the total sale consideration) at Rs.1

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

68,600/-, the assessee did not dispute the same but requested that the matter be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The value of land, as per DVO’s report, turned out to Rs.2,75,14,000/-. It was in this backdrop that the Assessing Officer adopted the sale consideration (being 50% of the total sale consideration) at Rs.1

KAMLESHBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

section 50C of the Act. As regards working out the sale consideration by adopting the jantri value as on date of agreement, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the matter may be set aside to the AO for this purpose with suitable direction. Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel Vs. DCIT, AY- 2012-13 6 8. We have considered the rival submissions

SHRI ARVINDBHAI POPATLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

50C of the IT Act, the said value taken of Rs.42,91,837/- (Rs.210300 Stamp Duty Paid / 4.9% Stamp Duty) Less :- Cost of Acquisition Rs. 19,04,093/- Indextion Cost Rs.2,67,805X711 = Rs.19,04,093/- 100 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN Rs. 23,87,744/- 4.4 In view of the above the AO has determined the long-term capital gain

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. SEJAL D. SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

Section 50C, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties reiterating their respective stands. Case file perused. ITA No. 3400/Ahd/14 [ITO vs. Smt. Sejal D Shah] A.Y. 2010-11 2. We notice at the outset that the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge elaborately discuss the relevant facts, Assessing

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

50C of the Act concerning immovable properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

50C of the Act concerning immovable properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

50C of the Act concerning immovable properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section

SMT. MONA MAHESHKUMAR BHOJANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,90,617/- as against taken by assessee in the return of income of Rs.1,18,81,200/- by applying section 50C

THE ACIT, SABARKANTHA CIRCLE,, HIMATNAGAR vs. SMT. JITENDRAKUMAR D. JADEJA,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 935/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

Section 50C without making reference to the DVO adopted the value assessed by stamp valuation authority as a deemed consideration. The property in subsequent assessment was referred to the DVO for valuation as on 31/03/2012, 31/03/2013 and 31/03/2014 as the property was sold in three years. The valuation given by the DVO is as under:- Sl. Property Estimated Declared

LALJIBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI GAUDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHEMDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2012-13

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2019. In the course of assessment, the A.O. had addition of Rs.45,30,460/- u/s 50C of the Act. Further certain other additions were also made and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

MOHAMMEDAARIF YUNUSBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-1(2)(3)), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

50C of the Act on the basis of his report. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Ground no.3 pertains to applying profit percentage on the cash deposits in the bank account. In the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer had treated the entire cash deposit of R.57,85,000/- as income of the assessee