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

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

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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,52,29,955/- on account of unexplained credit entries in the bank accounts, by not appreciating the fact involved in this case and holding that no incriminating material was found during search for A.Y.2009-10

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,52,29,955/- on account of unexplained credit entries in the bank accounts, by not appreciating the fact involved in this case and holding that no incriminating material was found during search for A.Y.2009-10

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,52,29,955/- on account of unexplained credit entries in the bank accounts, by not appreciating the fact involved in this case and holding that no incriminating material was found during search for A.Y.2009-10

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

section 50D would be applicable after the AO comes to a finding that consideration received is not ascertainable or cannot be determined. We have extracted the finding of the ld.DRP. Nowhere such aspect is discernible. The ld.AO as matter of fact accepted the sale consideration at Rs.1 crore. He only replaced with fair market value on the basis

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

section 50D would be applicable after the AO comes to a finding that consideration received is not ascertainable or cannot be determined. We have extracted the finding of the ld.DRP. Nowhere such aspect is discernible. The ld.AO as matter of fact accepted the sale consideration at Rs.1 crore. He only replaced with fair market value on the basis

VIMLABEN GUNVANTRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

50C(2) read with Section 155(15) of the Act. The DVO determined the fair market value of the property under show cause at Rs.2,95,75,000/- as against the stamp duty rate of Rs.3,31,46,940/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was working as partner in various firms from which interest on capital, remuneration

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

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

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

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

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

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

2,67,805.00 instead of 6,87,600.00 shown by the assessee. The AO further has also adopted the sale consideration by taking the stamp duty value in the manner provided under section 50C of the Act. As such, the AO has revised the long-term capital gain with respect to the impugned bungalow by observing as under