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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Id. CIT(A) is perverse when the Remand report has been called for from the A.O. and the case has not been decided on the facts submitted by the A.0. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Id. CIT(A) is perverse when the Remand report has been called for from the A.O. and the case has not been decided on the facts submitted by the A.0. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Id. CIT(A) is perverse when the Remand report has been called for from the A.O. and the case has not been decided on the facts submitted by the A.0. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order

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

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

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

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 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)(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 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

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

5 on the date of executing the banakhat was also Rs. 29.50 lakhs. In view of this fact, no addition was called for under section 50C of the Act, as the AO was required to consider the jantri rate on date of agreement and not on the date of execution of sale deed. According to the Ld. AR, since

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

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

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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 2. The assessee in its Cross Objection No.122/Ahd/2016 has raised the following grounds :- “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in adapting the Jantri value of Rs.1,68,90,617/- 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)

5. In the first appeal, the assessee reiterated its submission for adopting the value assigned by the registered valuer. The CIT(A) found merit in the plea of the assessee to some extents and granted partial relief having regard to the District Valuation Officer valuation report. The relevant operative para of the order of the CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder

SHRI KIRIT N. NAGAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

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

5 Shri Kirit N. Nagar vs. ITO basic details/confirmation letters. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the 3 unsecured loans claimed to have been taken by him during the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, the AO added the sum of " 32 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee