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

section 54B are concerned, the assessee submitted copies of agreements to purchase agricultural land at Rs.25,55,125/- and Rs.40,24,600/-. As regards the assessee being confronted with stamp duty valuation of Rs.3,15,68

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

section 54B are concerned, the assessee submitted copies of agreements to purchase agricultural land at Rs.25,55,125/- and Rs.40,24,600/-. As regards the assessee being confronted with stamp duty valuation of Rs.3,15,68

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

section 54B are concerned, the assessee submitted copies of agreements to purchase agricultural land at Rs.25,55,125/- and Rs.40,24,600/-. As regards the assessee being confronted with stamp duty valuation of Rs.3,15,68

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

section 54B are concerned, the assessee submitted copies of agreements to purchase agricultural land at Rs.25,55,125/- and Rs.40,24,600/-. As regards the assessee being confronted with stamp duty valuation of Rs.3,15,68

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. SHRI ANILBHAI BHOLABHAI PATEL, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

54B relevant to assessment years under appeal in accordance with law after requisite opportunity to the assessee. In view of the order dated 27/10/2016 of the Tribunal, the sale and purchase of land under consideration for the A.Y. 2013-14 is also to be treated as capital gains only. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the addition made

YASH ASHITBHAI VASHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1476/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yash Ashitbhai Vashi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E/1, Pranav Apartment Ward-1, V/S. Shreyas Tekra International Taxation Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiipv 9386 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68,000 to his mother’s account, and she paid for the property, mere transfer of funds does not establish ownership. The assessee relied on the judgment in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 117 (Raj. HC), where Section 54B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVRAJ HARSHADRAY PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

LATE SMT. RAMILABEN HARSHADRAI PATEL(THROUGH L/H DEVRAJ H.PATEL),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

DEVRAJ HARSHADRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B in as much as that as per assessee taxable capital gain was NIL and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the appellant. 2. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 38,50,000 u/s. 68 and holding that assessee failed to discharge onus to prove cash credit in as much as that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HITENDRAKUMAR BHAILALBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,33,280/-. 2 27.12.2011 An assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the taxable income equivalent to the income declared by the assessee. 3 19.03.2014 Action under Section 263 of the Act was taken by the Commissioner. An order was passed under Section 263 of the Act. 4 26.03.2015 An assessment

DCIT, CIR, 4(2), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

54B of the Act by observing as follows: “……5.3 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered thoroughly. The appellant with other partner, Shri Bharatbhai Patel entered into Banakhat with Vendor, Shri I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel Kiran V. Patel

DCIT, CIR.4(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LALITBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

54B of the Act by observing as follows: “……5.3 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered thoroughly. The appellant with other partner, Shri Bharatbhai Patel entered into Banakhat with Vendor, Shri I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel Kiran V. Patel

BHOGILAL BHAILALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 613/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Bhogilal Bhailalbhai The Pr. Commissioner Of Patel Income Tax-1 Vs. 475/2, Sagar Faliya, At & Vadodara Post Bhayali, Vadodara - 391410 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bkkpp3136R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hemant Suthar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit. Dr 19/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.6,19,980/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,94,450/-. The original assessment